
Glass. 
Book 







E 

ANTI-SLA'^'^B-R Y EXAMINER. 



.^ CHATTEL PRINCIPLE / 



IHE ABHORRENCE OF 



JESUS CHRIST AND THE APOSTLES; 



OR, 



NO REFUGE FOR AMERICAN SLAVERY 



THE NEW TESTAMENT. 



BY BERIAH GREEN. 



NEW YORK: 

PUBLISHED BY THE AMERICAN ANTI-SLAVERY SOCIETY, 
NO. 113 NASSAU STREET 



1839. 



This No. contains 4i sheet. — Postage, under 100 miles, 7 cts. over 100, 10 ctp 
It^ Pleaae Read and circulate, .j^ 



^ 













Jf> 



NEW TESTAMENT AGAINST SLAVERY. 



■■ygj 



>^^ 



" TUE SON OF MAN IS COME TO SEEK AND TO SAVE THAT WHICH WAS 

LOST." 

Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery 1 In 1776 Thomas 
Jefferson, supported by a noble band of patriots and surrounded by 
the American people, opened his lips in the authoritative declaration : 
" We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are creaied 
equal ; that they are endowed by their Creator with certai?i inalienable 
rights ; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happi- 
ness." And from the inmost heart of the multitudes around, and in a 
strong and clear voice, broke forth the unanimous and decisive an- 
swer : Amen — such truths we do indeed hold to be self-evident. And 
animated and sustained by a declaration, so inspiring and sublime, 
they rushed to arms, and as the result of agonizing efforts and dread- 
ful sufferings, achieved under God the independence of their country. 
The great truth, whence they derived light and strength to assert and 
defend their rights, they made the foundation of their republic. And 
in the midst of this republic, must we prove, that He, who was the 
Truth, did not contradict " the truths " which He Himself, as their 
Creator, had made self-evident to mankind ? 

Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery ? What, according 
to those laws which make it what it is, is American slavery ? In tlie 
Statute-book of South Carolina thus it is written : *" Slaves shall be 
deemed, held, taken, reputed and adjudged in law to be chattels person- 
al in the hands of their owners and possessors, and their executors, 
adfninistrators and assigns, to all intents, constructions and purposes 

* Stroud's Slave Laws, p. 23. 



in: i"oot of AmenC>iiP 



Avhatever." The ^y^root of AmenKiWlavery consists in the as- 
sumption, that lawml^educed ?nen to chaMels. But this assumption 
is, and must be, a gross falsehood. Men and cattle are separated from 
each other by the Creator, immutably, eternally, and by an impassable 
gulf. To confound or identify men and cattle must be to lie most 
wantonly, impudently, and maliciously. And must we prove, that 
Jesus Christ is not in favor of palpable, monstrous falsehood? 

Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery ? How can a sys- 
tem, built upon a stout and impudent denial of self-evident truth — a 
system of treating men like cattle — operate ? Thomas Jefferson shall 
answer. Hear him. •' The whole commerce between master and 
slave is a perpetual exercise of the most boisterous passions ; the most 
unremitting despotism on the one part, and degrading submission on the 
other. The parent storms, the oliild looks on, catches the lineaments 
of wrath, puts on the same airs in the circle of smaller slaves, gives 
loose to his worst passions, and thus nursed, educated, and daily exer- 
cised in tyranny, cannot but be stamped by it with odious peculiarities. 
The man must be a prodigy, who can retain his manners and morals 
undepraved by such circumstances."* Such is the practical opera- 
tion of a system, which puts men and cattle into the same family and 
treats them alike. And must we prove, that Jesus Christ is not in 
favor of a school where the worst vices in their most hateful forms are 
systematically and clficicntly taught and practiced ? 

Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery'/ What, in 1818^ 
did the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church affirm respecu 
ing its nature and operation '{ " Slavery creates a paradox in the 
moral system — it exhibits rational, accountable, and immortal beings, 
in such circumstances as scarcely to leave them the power of moral 
action. It exhibits them as dependent on the will of others, whether 
they shall receive religious instruction ; whether they shall know and 
worship the true God ; whether they shall enjoy the ordinances of the 
gospel ; whether they shall perform the duties and cherish the endear- 
ments of husbands an^ wives, parents and children, neighbors and 
friends ; whether they shall preserve their chastity and purity, or 
regard the dictates of justice and humanity. Such are some of the 
consequences of slavery ; consequences not imaginary, but which 
connect themselves with its very existence. The evils to which the 
slave is always ex[)osed, ojlen take place in their very worst degree 
and form ; and where all of them do uoi take place, still the slave is 

• Notes on Virginia, BoHton lid. I8:{-'. pp. 109, 17t>. 



deprived of his natural rights, degraded as a human being, and ex- 
posed to the danger of passing into the hands of a master who may 
inflict upon l)im all the hardships and injuries which inhumanity and 
avarice may suggest."* Must we prove, that Jesus Christ is not in 
favor of such things ? 

Is Jesus Christ in favor of American slavery ? It is already widely 
felt and openly acknowledged at the South, that they cannot support 
slavery without sustaining the opposition of universal Christendom. 
And Thomas Jefterson declared, " I tremble for my country when I 
reflect that God is just ; that his justice can not sleep forever ; that 
considering numbers, nature, and natural means only, a revolution of 
the wheel of fortune, an exchange of situation, is among possible 
events ; that it may become practicable by supernatural influences ! 
The Almighty has no attribute which can take sides with us in such a 
contest."! And must we prove, that Jesus Christ is not in favor of 
what universal Christendom is impelled to abhor, denounce, and op 
pose; is not in favor of what every attribute of Almighty God is ar- 
med against? 



" YE HAVE DESPISED THE POOR. 



It is no man of straw, with whom, in making out such proof, we are 
called to contend. Would to God we had no other antagonist ! Would 
to God that our labor of love could be regarded as a work of super- 
erogation ! But we may well be ashamed and grieved to find it 
necessary to " stop the mouths" of grave and learned ecclesiastics, 
who from the heights of Zion have undertaken to defend the institution 
of slavery. We speak not now of those, who amidst the monuments 
of oppression are engaged in the sacred vocation ; who, as ministers of 
the Gospel, can " prophesy smooth things " to such as pollute the altar 
of Jehovah with human sacrifices ; nay, who themselves bind the 
victim and kindle the sacrifice. That they should put their Savior to the 
torture, to wring from his lips something in favor of slavery, is not 'to be 
wondered at. They consent to the murder of the children ;* can they re- 
spect the rights of the Father ? But what shall we say of distinguished 
theologians of the North — professors of sacred literature at our oldest 
divinity schools — who stand up to defend, both by argument and au- 
thority, southern slavery ! And from the Bible ! Who, Balaam-like, 
try a thousand expedients to force from the mouth of Jehovah a sen- 

* Minutes of the the General Assembly for 1818, p. 29. 
t Notes on Virginia, Boston Ed. 1832. pp. 170, 171. 



6 

tence which they know the lieart ol' Jehovah abhors ! Surely we 
have here something more mischievous and formidable than a man 
of straw. More than two years ago, and just before the meeting of 
the General Assembly of the Presbyterian church, appeared an ar- 
ticle in the Biblical Repertory,* understood to be from the pen of the 
Professor of Sacred Literature at Princeton, in which an effort is made 
to show, that slavery, whatever may be said of any ahxises of it, is ?iot a 
violation of f he precepts of the Gospel. This article, we are informed, 
was industriously and extensively distributed among the members of 
the General Assembly — a body of men, who by a frightful majority 
seemed already too much disposed to wink at the horrors of slavery. 
The efluct of tlie Princeton Apology on the southern mind, we have high 
authority for saying, has been most decisive and injurious. It has con- 
tributed greatly to turn the public eye off from the sin — from the in- 
herent and necessary evils of slavery to incidental evils, which the 
abuse of it might be expected to occasion. And how few can be 
brought to admit, that whatever abuses may prevail nobody knows 
where or how, any such thing is chargeable upon them ! Thus our 
Princeton prophet has done what he could to lay the southern con- 
science asleep upon ingenious perversions of the sacred volume ! 

About a year after this, an cflbrt in the same direction was jointly 
made by Dr. Fisk and Professor Sluart. In a letter to a Methodist 
clergyman, Mr. Merrit, published in Zion's Herald, Dr. Fisk gives 
utterance to such things as the following : — 

" But that you and the public may sec and feel, that you have the 
ablest and those who arc among the honestest men of this age, array- 
ed against you, be pleased to notice tlic following letter from Prof. 
Stuart. I wrote to him, knowing as I did his integrity of purpose, his 
unflinching regard for truth, as well as his deserved reputation as a 
scholar and biblical critic, proposing the following questions: — 

1. Does the New Testament directly or indirectly teach, that 
slavery existed in the primitive church ? 

2. In 1 Tiin. vi. 2, And they that have believing masters, &c., 
what is the relation expressed or implied between " they " (servants) 
and " believing masters ?" And what are your reasons for the con- 
struction of the passage ? 

• For April, 1H3G. Tiic General Assembly of the Presbyterian Church met in 
the following May, at Pittsburg, where, in pamjililut form, this article was dis- 
tributed. The following appcart d upon the title page : 
PITTSBURG: 
1836. 
For graluiious distribution. 



3. What \vas the character of ancient and eastern slavery ? — 
Especially what (legal) power did this relation give the master over 
the slave ? 

PROFESSOR STUARt's REPLY. 

Andover, lOlh April, 1837. 
Rev. and dear Sir, — Years is before me. A sickness of three 
months' standing (typhus fever,) in which I have just escaped death, 
and which stOl confines me to my house, renders it impossible for mc 
to answer your letter at large. 

1. The precepts of the New Testament respecting the demeanor of 
slaves and of their masters, beyond all question, recognize the exist- 
ence of slavery. The masters are in part " believing masters," so 
that a precept to them, how they are to behave as masters, recognizes 
that the relation may still exist, salva fide et salva ecclesia, (" without 
violating the Christian faith or the church." Otherwise, Paul had 
nothing to do but to cut the band asunder at once. He could not law- 
fully and properly temporize with a malum in se, (" that which is in 
itself sin." ) 

If any one doubts, let him take the case of Paul's sending Onesi- 
mus back to Philemon, with an apology for his running away, and 
sending him back to be his servant for life. The relation did exist, 
may exist. The abuse of it is the essential and fundamental wrong. 
Not that the theory of slavery is in itself right. No ; " Love thy 
neighbor as thyself," " Do unto others that which ye would that others 
should do untjo you," decide against this. But the relation once con- 
stituted and continued, is not such a mulum in se as calls for imme- 
diate and violent disruption at all hazards. So Paul did not counsel. 

2. 1 Tim. vi. 2, expresses the sentiment, that slaves, who are Chris- 
tians and have Christian masters, are not, on that account, and because 
as Christians they are brethren, to forego the reverence due to them as 
masters. That is, the relation of master and slave is not, as a mat- 
ter of course, abrogated between all Christians. Nay, servants should 
in such a case, a fortiori, do their duty cheefuUy. This sentiment 
lies on the very face of the case. What the master's duty in such a 
case may be in repect to liberation, is another question, and one which 
the apostle does not here treat of. 

3. Every one knows, Avho is acquainted with Greek or Latin anti- 
quities, that slavery among heathen nations has ever been more un- 
qualified and at looser ends than among Christian nations. Slaves 
were property in Greece and Rome. That decides all questions about 
their relation. Their treatment depended, as it does now, on the 
temper of their masters. The power of the master over the slave was, 
for a long time, that of life and death. Horrible cruelties at length 
mitigated it. In the apostle's day, it was at least as great as among 
us. 

After all the spouting and vehemence on this subject, which have 
been exhibited, i\iQ good old Book remams the same. Paul's con- 



duct and advice are still sale guides. Paul knew ivell il„i r),,- , 
,^ would ultimately destroy La,y. as it cer a L y wi So k ™' 
00, hat, t would destroy u.onarehy and aristocraey from tl" ear* 

Pari did 'l';"""""'r 1 '""'"''•' °^ fruemert,Lie,,.am Yet 
Paul did not expect slavery or anarcliy to be ousted in a dav • Id 
gave precepts to CWsUatts respecting th^ir demea,?:: „S ^Si^ 

Wjth sincere and paternal regard, 

Your friend and brother, 

M. STUART. 

Tliri^oli^lo;^: ^h''°'^""'=' ^^^^ ^^'"l «'«"d, because it is Bible doctrine. 
I he abolitionists, then, are on a wrong course. They have traveled 
out of the record; and if they would succeed, Sy must 'akV a 
different position, and approacii the subject in a different manner. 

Respectfully yours, 

W. FISK." 

"so THEV WRAP [snarl] IT UP." 

What are we taught here ? That in the ecclesiastical organizations 
which grew up under the hands of the apostles, slavery was admitted 
as a relation that did not violate the Christian faith : that the relation 
may now in like manner exist ; that « the abuse of it is the essential 
and fundamental wrong;" and of course, that American Christians 
may hold their own brethren in slavery without incurring guilt or in- 
ftictmg injury. Thus, according to Prof. Stuart, Jesus Christ has not 
a word to say against « the peculiar institutions " of the South If 
our brethren there do not "abuse" the privilege of exacting unpaid 
labor, they may multiply their slaves to their hearts' content, without 
exposing themselves to the frown of the Savior or laying their Chris- 
tian character open to the least suspicion. Could any trafficker in 
human flesh ask for greater latitude ! And to such doctrines, Dr 
t isk eagerly and earnestly subscribes. He goes further. He urges 
It on the attention of his brethren, as containing important trufh, which 
they ought to embrace. According to him, it is -Bible cIocMne" 
showing, that «■ the abolitionists are on a wrong course," and must « if 
they would succeed, take a <liffercnt position." 

We now refer to such dis.ingui.shed names, to show, that in attempt 
ing to prove that Jesus Christ is not in favor of American slavery 
we contend with something else than a man of straw. The un-rate- 
tul task, which a particular examination of Professor Stuart's lette'r lays 
upon us, wc hope fairly to dispose of in due season. Enough has now 
been said to make it clear and certain, that American slavery has it. 
apologists and advocates in the northern pulpit ; advocates and apolo- 



9 

gists, who fall behind fuw if any of their brethren in the reputation they 
have acquired, the stations they occupy, and the general innucnco they 
are supposed to exert. 

Is it so ? Did slavery exist in Judea, and among the Jews, in its 
worst form, during the Savior's incarnation? If the Jews held slaves, 
they must have done so in open and flagrant violation of the letter and 
the spirit of the Mosaic Dispensation. Whoever has any doubts of 
this may well resolve his doubts in the light of the Argument entitled 
" The Bible against Slavery." If, after a careful a.nd thorough exam- 
ination of that article, he can believe that slaveholding prevailed during 
the ministry of Jesus Christ among the Jews and in accordance with 
the authority of Moses, he would do the reading public an important 
service to record the grounds of his belief — especially in a fair and full 
refutation of that Argument. Till that is done, we iiold ourselves ex. 
cused from attempting to prove what we now repeat, that if the Jews 
during our Savior's incarnation held slaves, they must have done so in 
open and flagrant violation of the letter and spirit of the Mosaic Dispen- 
sation. Could Christ and the Apostles every where among their coun- 
trymen come in contact with slaveholding, being as it was a gross viola, 
tion of that law which their office and their profession required them to 
honor and enforce, without exposing and condemning it ? 

In its worst forms, we are told, slavery prevailed over the whole 
world, not excepting Judea. As, according to such ecclesiastics as 
Stuart, Hudge, and Fisk, slavery in itself is not bad at all, the term 
" worst''' could be applied only to " abuses" of this innocent relation. 
Slavery accordingly existed among the Jews, disfigured and disgraced J# 
by the " worst abuses" to which it is liable. These abuses in llie an- 
cient world, Professor Stuart describes as " horrible cruelties." And 
in our own country, such abuses have grown so rank, as to lead a dis- 
tinguishcd eye-witness — no less a philosopher and statesman than 
Thomas Jefferson — to say, that they had armed against us ever}'- attri- 
bute of the Almighty. With these things the Savior everywhere 
came in contact, among the people to whose improvement and salva- ♦ 
tion he devoted his living powers, and yet not a word, not a syllable, in 'hK*' 
exposure and condemnation of such " horrible cruellies," escaped his 
lips ! He saw — among the " covenant people" of Jehovah he saw, the 
babe plucked from the bosom of its mother ; the wife torn from the 
embrace of her husband ; the daughter driven to the market by the 
scourge of her own father ; — he saw the word of God sealed up from 
those who, of all men, were especially entitled to its enlightening, quick- 
ening influence ; — nay, he saw men beaten for kneeling before the 
2 



10 

throne of heavenly mercy ; — such tilings he saw without a word of ad- 
monition or reproof! No sympathy with them who suffered wrong — 
no indignation at them who inflicted wrong, moved his heart ! 

From the alleged silence of the Savior, when in contact with 
slavery among the Jews, our divines infer, that it is quite consistent 
with Christianity. And they affirm, that he saw it in its worst forms ; 
that is, he witnessed what Professor Stuart ventures to call " horrible 
cruelties." But wliat right have these interpreters of the sacred vo- 
lume to regard any form, of slavciy which the Savior found, as " worst," 
or even bad? According to their inference — which they would thrust 
gag-wise into the mouths of abolitionists — his silence should seal up 
their lips. They ouglit to hold their tongues. They have no right to 
call any form of slavery bad — an abuse ; much less, horribly cruel ! 
Their inference i^c4»road enough to protect the most brutal driver 
amidst his deadliest inflictions ! 

" THINK NOT THAT I AM COME TO DESTROY THE LAW OR THE PROPHETS J 
I AM NOT COME TO DESTROY, BUT TO FULFIL." 

And did the Head of the new dispensation, then, fall so far behind 
the prophets of the old in a hearty and effective regard for sulTering 
humanity? The forms of oppression 'which' "they \Jiitnessed, excited 
their compassion and aroused their indignation. In terms the most 
pointed and powerful, they exposed, denounced, threatened. They 
could not endure the creatures, " who used their neighbors' servic5e 
without wages, and gave him not for his work ;"* who imposed " heavy 
iburdens"! upon their fellows, and loaded them with " the bands of 
wickedness ;" who, " hiding themselves from their own flesh," dis- 
owned their own mothers' children. Professions of piety joined with 
the oppression of the poor, they held up to universal scorn and execra- 
tion, as the dregs of hypocrisy. They warned the creature of such 
professions, that he could escape the wrath of Jehovah only by heart- 
felt r^|lfntance. And j'et, according to the ecclesiastics with whom 
we have to do, the Lord of these prophets passed by in silence just such 
cnormiy* as he connnanded them to expose and denounce ! Every 
v.hcrc^^camo in contact with slavery in its worst forms — "horrible 
cjueltiHK forced themselves upon his notice ; but not a word of re- 
buke orNiiirning did he utter. He saw " a boy given for a harlot, and 
a girl sold for wine, that they might drink, "J without the slightest feel- 
ing of displeasure, or any ni.irk of di>approbation ! To such disgust- 



* Jeremiah, xxii. 13. t Isaiah, Iviii. G, 7. \ Joel. iii. 3. 



11 

ing and horrible conclusions, do the arguings whicli, from the haunts 
of sacred literature, are inflicted on our churches, lead us ! According 
to them, Jesus Christ, instead of shining as the light of the world, extin- 
guished the torches which his own prophets liad kindled, and plunged 
mankind into the palpable darkness of a starless midnight ! O Savior, 
in pity to thy suffering people, let thy temple be no longer u.^d as a 
" den of thieves !" 

" THOU THOUGIITEST THAT I WAS ALTOGETHER SUCH AN ONE AS 
THYSELF." 

In passing by the worst forms of slavery, with which he every where 
came in contact among the Jews, the Savior must have been inconsis- 
tent with himself. He was commissioned to preach glad tidings to the 
poor ; to heal the broken-hearted ; to preach deliverance to the cap- 
tives ; to set at liberty them that are bruised ; to preach the year of 
Jubilee. In accordance with this commission, he bound himself, from 
the earliest date of his incarnation, to the poor, by the strongest ties ; 
himself " had not where to lay his head ;" he exposed himself to mis- 
representation and abuse for his affectionate intercourse with the out- 
casts of society ; he stood up as the advocate of the widow, denouncing 
and dooming the heartless ecclesiastics, who had made her bereave, 
ment a source of gain ; and in describing the scenes of the final judg- 
ment, he selected the very personification of poverty, disease and op- 
pression, as the test by which our regard for him should be determined. 
To the poor and wretched ; to the degraded and despised, his arms 
were ever open. They had his tenderest sympathies. They had his 
warmest love. His heart's blood he poured out upon the ground for 
the human family, reduced to the deepest degradation, and exposed to 
the heaviest inflictions, as the slaves of the grand usurper. And yet, 
according to our ecclesiastics, that class of suflfurers wlio had been re- 
duced immeasurably below every other shape and form of degradation 
and distress ; who had been most rudely thrust out of the family of 
Adam, and forced to herd with swine ; v/ho, without the slightest of- 
fence, had been made the footstool of the worst criminals ; whose 
"tears ViX-rc their meat night and day/' while, under nameless insults 
and killing injuries, they were continually crying, O Lord, O Lord : — 
this class of sufferers, and this alone, our biblical expositors, occupying 
the high places of sacred literature, would make us believe the com- 
passionate Savior coldly overlooked. Not an emotion of pity ; ivA a 
look of sympathy ; not a word of consolation, did his gracious heart 



12 



prompt him to bestow upon them ! He denounces damnation upon the 
devourer of tl.e widow's house. But the monster, whose trade it is to 
make widows and devour them and their babes, lie can calmly endure' 
O Savior, when wilt thou stop the mouths of such blasphemers ! 

"it is the SPIKIT THAT QUICKENETH." 

It seems that though, according to our Princeton professor, " the 
•subject" of slavery -is hardly alluded to by Christ in any of his per- 
sonal instructions,"* he had a way of « treating it." What was that ? 
Why, " he taught the true nature, dignity, equality, and destiny of 
men," and «• inculcated the principles of justice and love."t And ac 
cording to Professor Stuart, the maxims which our Savior furnished 
" decide against" " the theory of slavery." All, then, that these eccle-' 
s.astical apologists for slavery can make of the Savior's alleged si- 
lence is, that he did not, in his personal instructions, apply his own 
principles to iMs particular form of wickedness:' ForwickeJ that mu==t 
be, which the maxim., of the Savior decide against, and which our 
Princeton professor assures us the principles of the gospel, duly acted 
on, would speedily extinguish.! How remarkable it is, that a teacher 
should " haidly allude to a subject in any of his personal instructions," 
and yet inculcate principles which have a direct and vital bearing upon 
It!— should so conduct, as to justify the inference, that ''slaveholding 
IS not a crimc,'§ and at the same time lend its authority fjr its " speedy 
extinction !" 

Higher authority than sustains self-evident truths there cannot be. 
As forms of reason, they are rays from the face of Jehovah. Not only 
are their presence and power self.manifested, but they also shed a 
•strong and clear light around them. In their light, other truths arc 
visible. Luminaries themselves, it is their office to enlighten. To 
their authority, in every department of thought, the sane^mind bows 
promptly, gratefully, fully. And by their authority, he explains, proves, 
and disposes of whatever engages his attention and engrosses his powers 
as a reasonable and reasoning creature. For what, when thus em- 
ployed and when most successful, is the utmost he can accomplish ? 
Wliy, to make the conclusions which he would establish and commend, 
clear in the light of reason ;—m other words, to evince that ///c^ a /e 
reasonable. lie expects that those witli whom he has to do will ac 

* lMlsljurfr|,:ui,i,l,I,jt, (alr.^aily alliid.d to,) p.'.). 

+ Pitlshiirir paii.plilcf, p.<). t TliP sam-N l>. :il. ,S TlirRanic. p. 13. 



IS 

knowledge the authority of principle — will see whatever is exhibited in 
the light of reason. If they require him to go further, and, in order to 
convince them, to do something more than show that the doctrines 
he maintains, and the methods he proposes, are accordant with reason 
— are illustrated and supported by " self-evident truths" — they arc 
plainly " beside themselves." They have lost the use of reason. They 
are not to be argued with. They belong to the mad-house., 

"come now, let us reason TOGr.THER, SAITH THE LOED." 

Are v/e to honor the Bible, which Professor Stuart quaintly calls 
"the good old book," by turning away from "self-evident truths" to 
receive its instructions ? Can these truths be contradicted or denied 
there? Do we search for something there to obscure their clearness, 
or break their force, or reduce their authority ? Do we long to find 
something there, in the form of premises or conclusions, of arguing or 
of inference, in broad statements or blind hints, creed-wise or fact- 
wise, which may set us free from the light and power of first princi- 
ples ? And what if we were to discover what we were thus in search 
of? — something directly or indirectly, expressly or impliedly prejudi- 
oial to the principles, which reason, placing us under the authority of, 
makes self-evident? In what estimation, in that case, should we be 
constrained to hold the Bible ? Could we longer honor it as the book 
of God ? The look of God opposed to the authority of reason ! Why, 
before what tribunal do we dispose of the claims of the sacred volume 
to divine authority ? The tribunal of reason. This every one acknow. 
ledges the moment he begins to reason on the subject. And what must 
reason do with a book, which reduces the authority of its own princi- 
ples — breaks the force of self-evident truths ? Is he not, by way of 
eminence, the apostle of infidelity, who, as a minister of the gospel or 
a professor of sacred literature, exerts himself, with whatever arts of 
ingenuity or show of piety, to exalt the Bible at the expense of reason ? 
Let such arts succeed and such piety prevail, and Jesus Christ is " cru- 
cified afresh and put to an open shame." 

What saith the Princeton professor ? Why, in spite of "general 
principles," and " clear as we may think the arguments against des- 
potism, there have been thousands of ENLIGHTENED onr? ^ftO<i 
men, who honestly believe it to be of all forms of government the best 
and most acceptable to God."* Now, those "good men" must have 

* Pittsburg pamphlet. i>. 12. 



14 

been tlius warmly in favor of despotism, in consequence of, or in oppo- 
sition to, their being "enlightened." In other words, the light, which 
in such abundance they enjoyed, conducted them to the position in fa- 
vor of despotism, where the Princeton professor so heartily shook 
hands with them, or they must have forced their way there in despite 
of its hallowed influence. Either in accordance with, or in resistance 
to the light, they became what he found them — the advocates of des- 
potism. If in resistance to the light — and he says they were " en- 
lightened men" — what, so far as the subject with which alone he and 
we arc now concerned, becomes of their " honesty" and "goodness?" 
Good and honest resistors of the light, which was freely poured around 
them! Of such, what says Professor Stuart's "good old Book?" 
Their authority, where "general principles" command the least re- 
spect, must be small indeed. But if in accordance with the light, they 
have become the" advocates of despotism, tlien is despotism " the best 
form of government and most acceptable to God." It is sustained by 
the authority of reason, by the word of Jehovah, by the will of Heaven 1 
If this be the doctrine which prevails at certain theological seminaries, 
it must be easy to account for the spirit which they breathe, and the 
general influence which they exert. Why did not the Princeton pro- 
fessor place this "general principle" as a shield, heaven-wrought and 
reason-approved, over that cherished form of despotism which prevails 
among the churches of the South, and leave the "peculiar institutions" 
he is so forward to defend, under its protection ? 

What is the " general principle" to which, whatever may become 
of despotism, with its "honest" admirers and "enlightened" support- 
ers, human governments should be universally and carefully adjusted ? 
Clearly this — that as capable of, man is entitled to, self -gov ernmenl. And 
this is a specific form of a still more general principle, which may well 
be pronounced self-evident — thai every thing should be treated according 
to its nature. The mind that can doubt this, must be incapable of ra- 
tional conviction. Man, then, — it is the dictate of reason, it is the 
voice of Jehovah — must be treated as a man. What is he ? What 
are liis distinctive attributes? The Creator impressed his own image 
on liim. In this were found the grand peculiarities of his character. 
H(;re shone his glory. Mere reason manifests its laws. Mere the 
WILL puts forth its volitions. Here is the crown of immortality. 
Why such endowments ? Thus furnished — the image of Jehovah — is 
he notcapaljle of self-government? And is he not to bo so treated ? 
Within the sphere vhre the latos of reason place him, may lie not act 
according to his clioice — carry out his own volitions? — may he not 



15 
t 

enjoy life, exult in freedom, and pursue as lie will ihc path of blessed- 
ness? If not, why was he so created and endowed? Why the mys- 
terious, awful attribute of will ? To be a source, profound as the 
depths of hell, of exquisite misery, of keen anguish, of insulTerable tor- 
ment ! Was man, formed " according to the image of Jehovah," to be 
crossed, thwarted, counteracted; to be forced in upon himself ; to be 
the sport of endless contradictions ; to be driven bach and forth for- 
ever between mutually rcpellaiit forces ; and all, all "at the discretion 
of another r'* How can man be treated according to his nature, as 
endowed with reason or will, if excluded from ihc powers and privi- 
leges of self-government? — if "despotism" be let loose upon him, to 
" deprive him of personal liberty, oblige him to serve at the discretion 
of another," and with the power of •' transferring" such " authority" 
over him and such claim upon him, to " another master?" If " thou- 
sands of enlightened and good men" can so easily be found, who are 
forward to support " despotism" as "of all governments the best and 
most acceptable to God," we need not wonder at the testimony of 
universal history, that " the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in 
pain together until now." Groans and travail-pangs must continue to 
be the order of the day throughout " the whole ci-eation," till the rod 
of despotism be broken, and man be treated as man;— as capable of, 
and entitled to, self-government. 

But what is the despotism whose horrid features , our smooth pro- 
fessor tries to hide beneath an array of cunningly-selected words and 
nicely-adjusted sentences? It is the despotism of American slavery — 
which crushes the very life of humanity out of its victims, and trans- 
forms them to cattle ! At its touch, they sink from men to things ! 
"Slaves," saith Professor Stuart, '• were 'propeiiy in Greece and Rome. 
That decides all questions about their relation.^' Yes, truly. And 
slaves in republican America arc properly ; and as that en.sily, clearly, 
and definitely settles "all questions about their relaiioa,^^ why should 
the Princeton professor have put himself to the trouble of weaving a 
definition equally ingenious and inadequate — at once subtle and deceit- 
ful ? Ah, why 1 Was he willing thus to conceal the wrongs of his 
mother's children even from himself? If among the figments of his 
brain, he could fashion slaves, and make them something else than 
property, he knew full well that a very different pattern was in use 
among the southern patriarchs. Why did he not, in plain words and 
sober earnest, and good faith, describe the thing as it, was, instead of 

» Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 12. 



16 

employing lionied words and courtly phrases, to set forth with all be- 
coming vagueness and ambiguity, what might possibly be supposed to 
exist in the regions of fancy. 

" FOll nULERS ARE NOT A TEutiOR TO GOOD WORKS, BUT TO THE EVIL." 

But arc we, in maintaining the principle of self-government, to over- 
look the uniipe, or ncglecied, or broken powers of any of our fellow- 
men with whom wc may be connected ? — or the strong passions, 
vicious propensities, or criminal pursuits of others ? Certainly not. 
But in providing for their welfare, we are to exert influences and im- 
pose restraints suited to their character. In wielding those preroga- 
tives which the social of our nature authorizes us to employ for their 
benefit, we are to regard them as they are in truth, not things, not cat- 
tle, not articles of merchandize, but men, our fellow-men — reflecting, 
from however battered and broken a surface, reflecting with us the 
image of a common Father. And the great principle of self-govern- 
ment is to be the basis, to which the whole structure of discipline un- 
der which they may be placed, should be adapted. From the nursery 
and village school on to the work-house and state-prison, this principle 
is ever and in all things to be before the eyes, present in the thoughts, 
warm on the heart. Otherwise, God is insulted, while his image is 
despised and abused. Yes, indeed ; we remember, that in carrying 
out the principle of self-government, multiplied embarrassments and 
obstructions grow out of wickedness on the one hand and passion on 
the other. Such difficulties and obstacles wc are far enough from 
overlooking. But where are they to be found ? Are imbecility and 
wickedness, bad hearts and bad heads, confined to the bottom of socie- 
ty ? Alas, the weakest of the weak, and the desperately wicked, often 
occupy the high places of the earth, reducing every thing within 'heir 
reach to subserviency to the foulest purposes. Nay, the very power, 
they have usurped, has often been the chief instrument of turning their 
heads, inflaming their passions, corrupting their hearts. All the world 
knows, that the possession of arbitrary power has a strong tendency to 
make men shamelessly wicked and insuflorably mischievous. And 
this, whether the vassals over whom tliey doniineer, be f«.w or many. 
If you cannot trust man with himself, will you put his fellows under his 
control? — and flee from the inconveniences incident to self-government* 
to the horrors of despotism ? 



17 

"THOU THAT PREACHEST A MAN SHOULD NOT STEAL, DOST THOU STEAL." 

Is the slaveholder, the most absolute and shameless of all despots, to 
be intrusted with the discipline of the injured men whom he himself has 
reduced to cattle ? — with the discipline with which they are to be pre- 
pared to wield the powers and enjoy the privileges of freemen ? Alas, 
of such discipline as he can furnish, in the relation of owner to proper- 
ty, they have had enough. From this sprang the very ignorance and 
vice, which in the view of many, lie in the way of their immediate en- 
franchisement. He it is, who has darkened thi;ir eyes and crippled 
their powers. And are they to look to him for illumination and re- 
newed vigor! — and expect "grapes from thorns and figs from this- 
tles !" Heaven forbid ! When, according to arrangements which had 
usurped the sacred name of law, he consented to receive and use them 
as property, he forfeited all claims to the esteem and confidence, not 
only of the helpless sufTerers themselves, but also of every philanthro- 
pist. In becoming a slaveholder, he became the enemy of mankind. 
The very act was a declaration of war upon human nature. What 
less can be made of the process of turning men to cattle ? It is rank 
absurdity — it is the height of madness, to propose to employ him to 
train, for the places of freemen, those whom he has wantonly robbed of 
every right — whom he has stolen from themselves. Sooner place 
Burke, who used to murder for the sake of selling bodies to the dis- 
sector, at the head of a hospital. Why, what have our slaveholders 
been about these two hundred years ? Have they not been constantly 
and earnestly engaged in the work of education ? — training up their 
human cattle ? And how 1 Thomas Jefferson shall answer. " The 
whole commerce between master and slave, is a perpetual exercise of 
the jnost boisterous passions ; the most unremitting despotism on the 
one part, and degrading submission on the other." Is this the way to 
fit the unprepared for the duties and privileges of American citizens? 
Will the evils of the dreadful process be diminished by adding to its 
ength ? What, in 181S, was the unanimous testimony of the General 
Assembly of the Presbyterian Church ? Why, after describing a va- 
riety of influences growing out of slavery, most fatal to mental and 
moral improvement, the General Assembly assure us, that such "con- 
sequences are not imaginary, but connect themselves with the very 
EXISTENCE of slavery. The evils to which the slave is always exposed, 
qfte7i take place in fact, and in their very avorst degree and form ;* 

• The words here marked as emphatic, were so distinguished by ouroclvea. 
3 



18 

and where all of them do not take place," " still the slave is deprived 
of his natural right, degraded as a human being, and exposed to the 
danger of passing into the hands of a master who may inflict upon him 
all the hardships and injuries which inhumanity and avarice may sug- 
gest." Is this the condition in which our ecclesiastics would keep the 
slave, at least a liule longer, to fit him to be restored to himself? 

" AND THEY STOPPED THEIR EARS." 

The methods of discipline under which, as slaveholders, the South- 
rons now place their human cattle, they with one consent and in great 
wrath, forbid us to examine. The statesman and the priest unite in 
the assurance, that these methods are none of our business. Nay, they 
give us distinctly to understand, that if we come among them to take 
observations, and make inquiries, and discuss questions, they will dis- 
pose of us as outlaws. Nothing will avail to protect us from speedy 
and deadly violence ! What inference does all this warrant ? Surely, 
not that the methods which they employ are happy and worthy of uni- 
versal application. If so, why do they not take the praise, and give us 
the benefit of their wisdom, enterprise, an success? Who, that has 
nothing to hide, practices concealment? " He that doeth truth cometh 
to the light, that his deeds may be manifest, that they are wrought in 
God." Is this the way of slaveholders ? Darkness they court — they 
will have darkness. Doubtless " because their deeds are evil." Can 
we confide in methods for the benefit of our enslaved brethren, which it 
is death for us to examine? What good ever came, what good can we 
expect, from deeds of darkness ? 

Did the influence of the masters contribute any thing in the West 
Indies to prepare the apprentices for enfranchisement? Nay, verily. 
All the world knows better. They did what in them lay, to turn back 
the tide of blessings, which, through emancipation, was pouring in upon 
the famishing around them. Are not the best minds and hearts in 
England now thoroughly convinced, that slavery, under no modifica- 
tion, can be a school for freedom ? 

We say such things to the many who allege, that slaves cannot at 
once be entrusted with the powers and privileges of self-government. 
However this may be, they cannot be better qualified under the influ- 
ence of slavery. Tfuit must hehroken tip from which their ignorance, 
and viciousness, and wretchedness proceeded. That which can only 
do what it has always done, pollute and degrade, must not be employed 
to purify and elevate. The lower their character and condition, the 



19 

louder, clearer, sterner, the just demand for immediate emancipation. 
The plague-smitten sufferer can derive no benefit from breathing a Ut- 
tie longer an infected atmosphere. 

In thus referring to elemental principles — in thus availing ourselves 
of the light of self-evident truths — we bow to the authority and tread in 
the foot-prints of the great Teacher. He chid those around him for 
refusing to make the same use of their reason in promoting their spirit- 
ual, as they made in promoting their temporal welfare. He gives them 
distinctly to understand, that they need not go out of themselves to form 
a just estimation of their position, duties, and prospects, as standing in 
the presence of the Messiah. " Why, even of yourselves," he de- 
mands of them, "judge ye not what is right?''* How could they, un- 
less they, had a clear light, and an infallible standard within them, 
whereby, amidst the relations they sustained and the interests they had 
to provide for, they might discriminate between truth and falsehood, 
right and wrong, what they ought to attempt and what they ought to 
eschew '.' From this pointed, significant appeal of the Savior, it is clear 
and certain, that in human consciousness may be found self-evident 
truths, self-manifested principles ; that every man, studying his own 
consciousness, is bound to recognize their presence and authority, and 
in sober earnest and good faith to apply them to the highest practical 
concerns of "life and godliness." It is in obedience to the Bible, that 
we apply self-evident truths, and walk in the light of general principles. 
When our fathers proclaimed these truths, and at the hazard of their 
property, reputation, and life, stood up in their defence, they did homage 
to the sacred Scriptures — they honored the Bible. In that volume, 
not a syllable can be found to justify that form of infidelity, which in 
the abused name of piety, reproaches us for practising the lessons 
which "nature teacheth."f These lessons, the Bible requires us reve- 
rently to listen to, earnestly to appropriate, and most diligently and 
faithfully to act upon in every direction, and on all occasions. 

Why, our Savior goes so far in doing honor to reason, as to encour- 
age men universally to dispose of the characteristic peculiarities and 
distinctive features of the Gospel in the light of its principles. " If any 
man will do his will, he shall know of the doctrine, whether it be of 
God, or whether I speak of myself. "J Natural religion — the princi- 
ples which nature reveals, and the lessons which nature teaches — he 
thus makes a test of the truth and authority of revealed religion. So 
far was he, as a teacher, from shrinking from the clearest and most 

* Luke, xii, 57. 
1 1 Cor. xi. 14. t John, vii. 17. 



20 

piercing rays of reason — from calling off the attention of those around 
him from the import, bearings, and practical application of general 
principles. And those who would have us escape from the pressure of 
self-evident truths, by betaking ourselves to the doctrines and precepts 
of Christianity, whatever airs of piety they may put on, do foul dishonor 
to the Savior of mankind. 

And what shall we say of the Golden Rule, which, according to the 
Savior, comprehends all the precepts of the Bible ? " Whatsoever ye 
would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them ; for this is 
the law and the prophets." 

According to this maxim, in human consciousness, universally, may 
be found, 1. The standard whereby, in all the relations and circum- 
stances of lift', we may determine what Heaven demands and expects 
of us. 2. The just application of this standard, is practicable for, and 
obligatory upon, every child of Adam. 3. The qualification requisite 
to a just application of this rule to all the cases in which we can be 
concerned, is simply this — to regard all the members of the human family 
as our brethren, our equals. 

In other words, the Savior here teaches us, that in t!ic principles and 
laws of reason, we have an infallible guide in all the relations and cir- 
cumstances of life ; that nothing can hinder our following this guide, 
but the bias of selfishness ; and that the moment, in deciding any moral 
question, wo place ourselves in the room of our brother, before the bar 
of reason, we shall see what decision ought to be pronounced. Does 
this, in the Savior, look like fleeing self-evident truths ! — like decrying 
the authority of general principles! — like exalting himself at the ex- 
pense of reason ! — like opening a refuge in the Gospel for those whose 
practice is at variance with the dictates of humanity ! 

What then is the just application of the Golden Rule— ' at funda- 
mental maxim of the Gospel, giving character to, and sheoding light 
upon, all its precepts and arrangements — to t..e subject of slavery? — 
that we must "do lo^'' slaves as we would be done by, as tlaves, the rela- 
tion itself being just fied and continued ? Surely not. A little reflec- 
tion will enable us to see, that the Golden Rule reaches farther in its 
dcmand.s, and strikes deeper in its influences and operations. The 
natural equality of mankind lies at the very basis of this great precept. 
It o'ninusly requires every man to acknowhdge another srlf in every 
other num. With my powers and resources, and in my appropriate 
circumstances, I am to recognize in any child of Adam who may ad- 
dress me, another self in his appropriate circumstances and with his 
powers and resources. This is the natural equality of mankind ; and 
'bis ihc Golden Rule requirt s us to admit, defend, and maintain. 



21 



"why do ye not understand siy speech; even because ye can- 
not HEAR MY word." 

They strangely misundorstand and grossly misrepresent this doc- 
trine, who charge upon it the absurdities and mischief;j which any " le- 
velling system'* cannot but produce. In all its bearings, tendencies, 
and efTecis, it is directly contrary and powerfully hostile to any such 
system. Equality of rights, the doctrine asserts ; and this necessa- 
rily opens the way for variety of condition. In other words, every 
child of Adam has, from the Creator, the inalienable right of wielding, 
within reasonable limits, his own powers, and employing his own re- 
sources, according to his own choice ; — the rights while he respects his 
social relations, to promote as he will his own welfare. But mark — 
HIS own powers and resources, and not another's, are thus inaliena. 
bly put under his control. The Creator makes every man free, in 
whatever he may do, to exert himself, and not another. Here no man 
may lawfully cripple or embarrass another. The feeble may not hin- 
der the strong, nor may the strong crush the feeble. Every man may 
make the most of himself, in his own proper sphere. Now, as in the 
constitutional endowments, and natural opportunities, and lawful acqui- 
sitions of mankind, infinite variety prevails, so in exerting each him- 
self, in his own sphere, according to his own choice, the variety of 
human condition can be little less than infinite. Thus equality of rights 
opens the way for variety of condition. 

But with all this variety of make, means, and condition, considered 
individually, the children of Adam are bound together by strong ties 
which can never be dissolved. They arc mutually united by the social 
of their na,Vire. Hence mutual dependence and mutual claims. While 
each is int-iienably entitled to assert and enjoy his own personality 
as a man, each sustains to all and all to each, various relations. While 
each owns and honors the individual, all are to own and honor the social 
of their nature. Now, the Golden Rule distinctly recognizes, lays its 
requisitions upon, and extends its obligations to, the whole nature of 
man, in his individual capacities and social relations. What higher 
honor could it do to man, as an individual, than to constitute him the 
judge, by whose decision, when fairly rendered, all the claims of his 
fellows should be authoritatively and definitely disposed of? " What- 
soever ye would" have done to you, so do ye to others. Every mem- 
ber of the family of Adam, placing himself in the position here pointed 
out, is competent and authorized to pass judgment on all the cases in 



22 



social life in which he may be concerned. Could higher responsibili- 
ties or greater confidence be reposed in men individually ? And then, 
how are their claims upon each other herein magnified ! What inhe- 
rent worth and solid dignity are ascribed to the social of their nature ! 
In every man with whom I may have to do, I am to recognize the pre- 
aence o{ another self, whose case 1 am to make my own. And thus 1 
am to dispose of whatever claims he may urge upon me. 

Thus, in accordance with the Golden Rule, mankind are naturally 
broucrht, in the voluntary use of their powers and resources, to promote 
eacirother's welfare. As his contribution to this great object, it is the 
inalienable birthright of every child of Adam, to consecrate whatever 
he may possess. Whh exalted powers and large resources, he has a 
natural claim to a correspondent field of effort. If his « abilities" are 
small, his task must be easy and his burden light. Thus the Golden 
Rule requires mankind mutually to serve each other. In this service, 
each is to exert Tiim^e//— employ his own powers, lay out his own re- 
sources, improve his own opportunities. A division of labor is the 
natural result. One is remarkable for his intellectual endowments and 
acquisitions; another, fov his wealth ; and a third, for powerandsk.il 
in using his muscles. Such attributes, endlessly varied and diversified, 
proceed from the basis of a comnu>n character, by virtue of which aU 
Ln and each-one as truly as anolher-are entitled, as a birthright, 
to " life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Each and all, one as 
well as another, may choose his own modes of contributing h.s share 
to the general welfare, in which his own is involved and identified. 
Under one great law of mutual dependence and mutual responsibility, 
all are placed-the strong as well as the weak, the rich as much as 
the poor, the learned no less than the unlearned. All bring then- 
wares, the products of their enterprise, skill and industr>s to the same 
„.arke , where n.utual exchanges are freely effected. 1 he Iru.s of 
muscular exertion procure the fruits of mental effort John serves 
Thomas with his hands, and Thomas serves ohn with his money. 
Peter wields the axe for James, and James wields the pen for Peter. 
Moses, Joshua, and Caleb, employ their wisdom, courage and experi- 
Le in the service of the community, and the community serve Mo- 
les ioshua, and Caleb, in furnishing them with food and raiment, and 
n a'ku" hem partakers of the general prosperity. An a 1 tins by mu 
tual u^lersta,' ing and voluntary arrangement. And all tins according 

" mlitrbeles of .^....-a system of arrangements in whid. 
one man tr-nts his follow, not as another self, but as u tlnng-a chattel 



23 

— an article of merchandize, which is not to be cMsulted in any dispo- 
sition which may be made of it ; — a system which is built on the anni- 
hilation of the attributes of our common nature — in which man doth to 
others what he would sooner die than have done to himself? The 
Golden Rule and slavery are mutually subversive of each other. If 
one stands, the other must fall. The one strikes at the very root of the 
other. The Golden Rule aims at the abolition of the relation iTSELFt 
in which slavery consists. It lays i*s demands upon every thing within 
the scope of human action. To ** whatever men do," it extends its 
authority. And the relation itself, in which slavery consists, is the 
work of human hands. It is what men have done to each other — con- 
trary to nature and most injurious to the general welfare. This re- 
lation, therefore, the Golden Rule condemns. Wherever its authori- 
ty prevails, this relation must be annihilated. Mutual service and 
slavery — like light and darkness, life and death — are directly opposed 
to, and subversive of, each other. The one the Golden Rule cannot 
endure ; the other it requires, honors, and blesses. 

" LOVE WORKETH NO ILL TO HIS NEIGHBOR." 

Like unto the Golden Rule is the second great commandment — 
" Thou shall love thy neighbor as thyself." " A certain lawyer," who 
seems to have been fond of applying the doctrine of limitation of hu- 
man obligations, once demanded of the Savior, within what limits the 
meaning of the word "neighbor" ought to be confined. " And who 
is my neighbor ?" The parable of the good Samaritan set that matter 
in the clearest light, and made it manifest and certain, that every 7iian 
whom we could reach with our sympathy and assistance, was our 
neighbor, entitled to the same regard which we cherished for ourselves. 
Consistently with such obligations, can slavery, as a relation, be main- 
tained ? Is it then a labor of love — such love as we cherish for our- 
selves — to strip a child of Adam of all the prerogatives and privileges 
which are his inalienable birthright ? To obscure his reason, crush his 
will, and trample on his immortality? — To strike home to the inmost 
of his being, and break the heart of his heart? — To thrust liim out of 
the human family, and dispose of him as a chattel — as a thing in the 
hands of an owner, a beast under the lash of a driver ? All this, apart 
from every thing incidental and extraordinary, belongs to the RELATioif, 
in which slavery, as such, consists. All this — well fed or ill fed, un 
derwrought or overwrought, clothed or naked, caressed or kicked, 
whether idle songs break from his thoughtless tongue or " tears be his 



24 

meat night and day," fondly cherished or cruelly murdered ; — all this 

EiXTERS VITALLY INTU THE KELATION ITSELF, by which CVCry slavc, AS A 

SLAVE, is set apart from the rest of the liuinan family. Is it an exercise 
of love, to place our "neighbor" under the crushing weight, the killing 
power, of such a relation? — to apply the murderous steel to the very 
vitals of his humanitv ? 



*' i'E THEREFORE Al'PLAUD AND DELIGHT IN THE DEEDS OF YOUR FA- 
THERS; FOR THEY KILLED THEM, AND YE BUILD THEIR SEPULCHRES."* 

The slaveholder may eagerly and loudly deny, that any such thing 
is chargeable upon him. He may confidently and earnestly allege, 
that he is not responsible for the state of society in which he is placed. 
Slavery was established before he began to breathe. It was his in- 
heritance. His slaves are his property by birth or testament. But 
why will he thus deceive himself? Why will he permit the cunning 
and rapacious spiders, which in the very sanctuary of ethics and reli- 
gion are laboriously weaving webs from their own bowels, to catch him 
with their wretched sophistries? — and devour him, body, soul, and sub- 
stance ? Let him know, as he must one day with shame and terror 
own, that whoever holds slaves is himself responsible for the relation, 
into which, whether reluctantly or willingly, he thus enters. The re- 
lation cannot he forced iipon him. What though Elizabeth counte- 
nanced John Hawkins in stealing the natives of Africa ? — what though 
James, and Charles, and George, opened a market for them in the 
English colonies? — what though modern Dracos have "framed mis- 
chief by law," in legalizing man-stealing and slavcholding? — what 
though your ancestors, in preparing to go " to their own place," con- 
stituted yoM the owner of the •' neighbors" whom they had used as 
cattle 1 — what of all this, and as much more like this, as can be drawn 
from the history of that dreadful process by which men are " deemed, 
held, taken, reputed, and adjudged in law to be chattels jiersonal?" Can 
all this force you to put the cap upon the clima.x — to clinch the nail by 
doin<Mhat, without which nothing in the work of slave-making would be 
attemiited ? The slaveholder is the soul (f the whole system. Without 
him, the chattel principle is a lifeless abstraction. Without him, char- 
ters, and markets, and laws, and testaments, are empty names. And 
doe« he think to escape responsibility ? Why, kidnappers, and soul- 

♦ You jijui witli them in their bloody work. Tlicy murder, and you bury the 
victim!). 



25 

drivers, and law-makfers, are nothing but his agents. He is the guilty 
principal. Let him look to it. 

But what can he do ? Do ? Keep, his hands off his " neighbor's" 
throat. Let him refuse to finish and ratify the process by which the 
chattel principle is carried into effect. Let him refuse, in the face of 
derision, and reproach, and opposition. Though poverty should 
fasten its bony hand upon him, and persecution shoot forth its forked 
tongue ; whatever may betide him — scorn, flight, flames — let him 
promptly and steadfastly refuse. Better the spite and hate of men 
than the wrath of Heaven ! " If thy right eye offend thee, pluck it 
out and cast it from thee ; for it is profitable for thee, that one of thy 
members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast 
into hell." 

Professor Stewart admits, that the Golden Rule and the second 
great commandment " decide against the theory of slavery, as being in 
itself right." What, then, is their relation to the particular precepts, 
institutions, and usages, which are authorized and enjoined in the 
New Testament ? Of all these, they are the summary expression — 
the comprehensive description. No precept in the Bible, enforcing 
our mutual obligations, can be more or less than the applicatio/c of 
these injunctions to specific relations or particular occasions and condi. 
tions. Neither in the Old Testament nor the New, do prophets teach 
or laws enjoin, any thing which the Golden Rule and the second great 
command do not contain. Whatever they forbid, no other precept 
can require ; and whatever they require, no other precept can forbid. 
What, then, does he attempt, who turns over the sacred pages to find 
something in the way of permission or command, which may set him 
free from the obligations of the Golden Rule ? What must his objects, 
methods, spirit be, to force him to enter upon such inquiries ? — to com- 
pel him to search the Bible for such a purpose ? Can he have good 
intentions, or be well employed ? Is his frame of mind adapted to the 
study of the Bible? — to make its meaning plain and welcome? 
What must he think of God, to search his word in quest of gross incon- 
sistencies, and grave contradictions ! Inconsistent legislation in 
Jehovah ! Contradictory commands ! Permissions at war with pro- 
hibitions ! General requirements at variance with particular arrange- 
ments ! 

What must be the moral character of any institution which the 

Golden Rule decides against ? — which the second great command con- 

demns ? It cannot but be wicked, whether newly established or long 

maintained. However it may be shaped, turned, colored — under 

4 



26 



every modification and at all tunes— wickedness must be its proper 
character. It must he, in itself, a^irt fr^m its circrcrtistances, in its 
ESSENCE, apart from its incidents, sinful. 

" THINK NOT TO SAY WITHIN YOURSELVES, WE HAVE ABRAHAM 
FOR OUR FATHER." 

In disposing of those precepts and exhortations which have a spe- 
cific bearing upon the subject of slavery, it is greatly important, nay, 
absolutely essential, that we look forth upon the objects around us 
from the ri-ht post of observation. Our stand we must take at some 
central point, amidst the general maxims and fundamental precepts, 
the known circumstances and characteristic arrangements, of prmii- 
ive Christianity. Otherwise, wrong views and false conclusions will 
be the result of our studies. We cannot, therefore, be too earnest m 
trying to catch the general features and prevalent spirit of the New 
Testament institutions and arrangements. For to what conclusions 
must we come, if we unwittingly pursue our inquiries under the bias 
of the prejudice, that the general maxims of social life which now pre- 
vail in this country, were current, on the authority of the Savior, 
among the primitive Christians ! That, for instance, wealth, station, 
talents, are the standard by which our claims upon, and our regard for, 
others, should be modified ?-That those who are pinched by poverty, 
worn by disease, tasked in menial labors, or marked by features of- 
fensive to the taste of the artificial and capricious, are to be excluded 
from those refreshing and elevating influences which intelligence and 
refinement may be expected to exert ; that thus they are to constitute 
a class by themselves, and to be made to know and keep their p.ace at 
the very bottom of society ] Or, what if we should think and speak 
of the primitive Christians, as if they had the same pecuniary resour- 
ces as Heaven has lavished upon the American churches ?--as if they 
were as remarkable for afilucnce, elegance, and splendor ? Or, as it 
they had as high a position ani as extensive an influence in politics 
and literature ?-having directly or indirectly, the control over the 
high places of learning and of [)0Wer ? 

If we should pursue our studies and arrange our arguments-.t we 
should explain words and interpret language-under such a bias, what 
must inevitably be the results ? What would be the worth ot our con- 
clusions ? What confidence could be reposed in any instruc^t.on we 
might undertake to furnish? And is nut this th. way in which the 
advocafs and apologists of slavery dispose of the bearing which primi- 



27 

tive Christianity has upon it ? They first ascribe, unwittingly, per. 
haps, to the primitive churches, the character, relations, and condition 
of American Christianity, and amidst the deep darlTness and strant^e 
confusion thus produced, set about interpreting the language and ex- 
plaining the usages of the New Testair.p;;! ! 

" so THAT YE ARE WITHOUT EXCUSE." 

Among the lessons of instruction which our Savior imparted, having 
a general bearing on the subject of slavery, that in which he sets up 
the true standard of greatness, deserves particular attention. In re- 
pressing the ambition of his disciples, he held up before them the 
methods by which alone healthful aspirations for eminence could be 
gratified, and thus set the elements of true greatness in the clearest 
light. " Ye know, that they which are accounted to rule over the 
Gentiles, exercise lordship over them ; and their great ones exercise 
authority upon them. But so shall it not be among you ; but whosoever 
will be great among you, shall be your minister ; and tvhosoever of 
you will be the chief est, shall be servant of alV In other words, through 
the selfishness and pride of mankind, the maxim widely prevails in the 
world, that it is the privilege, prerogative, and mark of greatness, to 
EXACT SERVICE ; that our superiority to others, while it authorizes us 
to relax the exertion of our own powers, gives us a fair title to the use 
of theirs; that "might," while it exempts us from serving, *' gives 
the right" to be served. The instructions of the Savior open the way 
to greatness for us in the opposite direction. Superiority to others, in 
whatever it may consist, gives us a claim to a wider field of exertion, 
and demands of us a larger amount of service. We can be great only 
as we are useful. And " might gives right" to bless our fellow men, 
by improving every opportunity and employing every faculty, afTec 
tionately, earnestly, and unweariedly, in their service. Thus the 
greater the man, the more active, faithful, and useful the servant. 

The Savior has himself taught us how this doctrine must be applied. 
He bids us improve every opportunity and employ every power, even 
through the most menial services, in blessing the human fixmily. And 
to make this lesson shine upon our understandings and move our hearts, 
he embodied in it a most instructive and attractive example. On a 
memorable occasion, and just before his crucifixion, he discharged for 
his disciples the most menial of all offices— taking, in washing their feet, 
the place of the lowest servant. He took great pains to make them 



28 

understand, that only by imitating tliis example could they honor their 
relations to him as their Master; tliat thus only would they find them- 
selves blessed. By what possibihty could slavery exist under the 
influence of such a lesson, set home by such an example ? Was it 
while washing the disciples'' feet, that our Savior authorized one man 
to make a chattel of another ? 

To refuse to provide for ourselves by useful labor, the apostle Paul 
teaches us to regard as a grave offence. After reminding the Thes- 
salonian Christians, that in addition to all his official exertions he had 
with his own muscles earned his own bread, he calls their attention to 
an arrangement which was supported by apostolical authority, " that if 
any would not work, neither should he eat." In the most earnest and 
solemn manner, and as a minister of the Lord Jesus Christ, he com- 
raanded and exhorted those who neglected useful labor, '■'■ withquietv.ess 
to work and eat their own bread." What must be the bearing of all 
this upon slavery ? Could slavery be maintained where every man eat 
the bread which himself had earned ? — where idleness was esteemed so 
great a crime, as to be reckoned worthy of starvation as a punishment ? 
How could unrequited labor be exacted, or used, or needed ? Must 
not every one in such a community contribute his share to the general 
welfare ? — and mutual service and mutual support be the natural 
result ? 

The same apostle, in writing to another church, describes the true 
source whence the means of liberality ought to be derived. " Let him 
that stole steal no more ; but rather let him labor, working with his 
hands the thing which is good, that he may have to give to him that 
needeth." Let this lesson, as from the lips of Jehovah, be proclaimed 
throughout the length and breadth of South Carolina. Let it be uni- 
versally welcomed and reduced to practice. Let thieves give up what 
they had stolen to the lawful proprietors, cease stealing, and begin at 
once to " labor, working with their hands," for necessary and charitable 
purposes. Could slavery, in such a case, continue to exist ? Surely 
not ! Instead of exacting unpaid services from others, every man 
would be busy, exerting himself not only to provide for his own wants, 
but also to accumulate funds, "that he might have to give to" the 
needy. Slavery must disappear, root and branch, nt once and for- 
ever. 

In describing the source whence his ministers should expect their 
support, the Savior furnished u general principle, which has an obvious 



29 

and powerful bearing on the subject of slavery. He would have them 
remember, while exerting themselves for the benefit of their fellow 
men, that "the laborer is worthy of his hire," He has thus united 
wages with work. Whoever renders the one is entitled to the other. 
And this manifestly according to a mutual understanding and a voluii- 
tary arrangement. For the doctrine that I may force you to work for 
me for whatever consideration I may please to fix upon, fairly opens 
the way for the doctrine, that you, in turn, may force me to render 
^ou whatever wages you may choose to exact for any services you 
may see fit to render. Thus slavery, even as involuntary servitude, 
is cut up by the root. Even the Princeton professor seems to regard 
it as a violation of the principle which unites work with wages. 

The apostle James applies this principle to the claims of manual 
laborers— of those who hold the plough and thrust in the sickle. He 
calls the rich lord lings who exacted sweat and withheld wages, to 
" weeping and howling," assuring them that the complaints of the 
injured laborer had entered into the ear of the Lord of Hosts, and 
that, as a result of their oppression, their riches were corrupted, and 
their garments moth-eaten ; their gold and silver were cankered ; 
that the rust of them should be a witness against them, and should eat 
their flesh as it were fire ; that, in one word, they had heaped trea- 
sures together for the last days, when " miseries were coming upon 
them," the prospect of which might well drench them in tears and fill 
them with terror. If these admonitions and warnings were heeded 
there, would not " the South" break forth into " weeping and wailing, 
and gnashing of teeth ?" "What else are its rich men about, but with- 
holding by a system of fraud, his wages from the laborer, who is 
wearing himself out under the impulse of fear, in cultivating their 
fields and producing their luxuries? Encouragement and support do 
they derive from James, in maintaining the " peculiar institution'' 
which they call patriarchal, and boast of as the " corner-stone" of the 
republic ? 

In the New Testament, wo have, moreover, the general injunction, 
♦' Honor all men." Under this broad precept, every form of human- 
ity may justly claim protection and respect. The invasion of any hu- 
man right must do dishonor to humanity, and be a transgression of 
this command. How then, in the light of such obligations, must 
slavery be regarded ? Are those men honored, who are rudely exclud- 
ed from a place in the human family, and shut up to the deep degrada- 
tion and nameless horrors of chattelship ? Can they be held as slaves, 
and at the same time he honored as men 1 



30 

How far, in obeying this command, we are to go, we may infer 
from the admonitions and instructions wliich James applies to the 
arrangements and usages of religious assemblies. Into these he can 
not allow " respect of persons" to enter. " My brethren," he exclaims, 
" have not the faith of our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory, with 
respect of persons. For if there come unto your assembly a man with 
a gold ring, in goodly apparel ; and there come in also a poor man in 
vile raiment ; and ye have respect to him that weareth the gay cloth- 
ing, and say unto him, sit thou here in a good place ; and say to the 
poor, stand thou there, or sit here under my footstool ; are ye not then 
partial in yourselves, and are become judges of evil thoughts ? If 
ye have respect to persons, ye commit sin, and are convinced of the law as 
transgressors. On this general principle, then, religious assemblies 
ought to be regulated — that every man is to be estimated, not accord- 
ing to his circumstances — not according to anything incidental to his 
condition ; but according to his moral worth — according to the essential 
features and vital elements of his character. Gold rings and gay 
clothing, as they qualify no man for, can entitle no man to, a " good 
place" in the church. Nor can the " vile raiment of the poor man," 
fairly exclude him from any sphere, however exalted, which his heart 
and head may fit him to fill. To deny this, in theory or practice, is 
to degrade a man below a thing ; for what are gold rings, or gay 
clothing, or vile raiment, but things, " which perish with the using ?" 
And this must be "to commit sin, and be convinced of the law as 
transgressors." 

In slavery, wc have " respect of persons," strongly marked, and 
reduced to system. Here men are despised not merely for "the vile 
raiment,' which may cover their scarred bodies. This is bad enough. 
But the deepest contempt of humanity here grows out of birth or com- 
plexion. Vile raiment may be, often is, the result of indolence, or im- 
providence, or extravagance. It may be, often is, an index of charac- 
ter. But how can I be responsible for the incidents of my birth ? — 
how for my complexion ? To despise or honor me for these, is to be 
guilty of "respect of persons" in its grossest form, and with its worst 
effects. It is to reward or punish me for what I had nothing to do 
with ; for wliich, therefore, I cannot, without the greatest injustice, be 
held responsible. It is to poison the very fountains of justice, by con- 
founding all moral distinctions. What, then, so far as the authority of 
the New Testament is concerned, becomes of slavery, which cannot be 
maintained under any form nor for a single moment, without " respect 
of persons" the most aggravated and unendurable ? And what would 



31 

become of that most pitiful, silly, and wicked arrangement in so ma- 
ny of our churches, in which worshippers of a dark complexion are to 
be sent up to the negro pew ?* 

Nor are we permitted to confine this principle to religious assem. 
blies. It is to pervade social life everywhere. Even where plenty, 
intelligence and refinement, difTuse their brightest rays, the poor are to 
be welcomed with especial favor. " Then said he to him that bade 
him, when thou makest a dinner or a supper, call not thy friends, nor 
thy brethren, neither thy kinsmen, nor thy rich neighbors, lest they 
also bid thee again, and a recompense be made thee. But when thou 
makest a feast, call the poor and the maimed, the lame and the blind, 
and thou shalt be blessed ; for they cannot recompense thee, but thou 
shalt be recompensed at the resurrection of the just." 

In the high places of social life then — in the parlor, the drawing- 
room, the saloon — special reference should be had, in every arrange, 
ment, to the comfort and improvement of those who are least able to 
provide for the cheapest rites of hospitality. For these, ample accom- 
modations must be made, whatever may become of our kinsmen and 
rich neighbors. And for this good reason, that while such occasions 
signify little to the latter, to the former they are pregnant with good — 
raising their drooping spirits, cheering their desponding hearts, inspir- 
ing them with life, and hope, and joy. The rich and the poor thus 
meeting joyfully together, cannot but mutually contribute to each other's 
benefit ; the rich will be led to moderation, sobriety, and circumspec- 
tion, and the poor to industry, providence, and contentment. The 
recompense must be great and sure. 

A most beautiful and instructive commentary on the text in which 
these things are taught, the Savior furnished in his own conduct. He 
freely mingled with those who were reduced to the very bottom of soci- 
ety. At the tables of the outcasts of society he did not hesitate to be a 
cheerful guest, surrounded by publicans and sinners. And when 
flouted and reproached by smooth and lofty ecclesiastics, as an ultraist 
and leveler, he explained and justified himself by observing, that he 
had only done what his office demanded. It was his to seek the lost, 

* In Carlyle's Review of the Memoirs of Mirabeau, we have the following 
anecdote illustrative of the character of a '' grandmother" of the Count. " Fan- 
cy the dame Mirabeau sailing stately towards the church font ; another dame 
striking in to take precedence of her; the dame Mirabeau despatching this latter 
with a box on the ear, and these words, '' Here, as in the army, the bagoaoe goes 
last ." " Let those who justify the negro-pew-arrangemcnt, throw a stone at this 
proud woman — if they dare. 



32 

to heal the sick, to pity the wretched ; — in a word, to bestow just such 
benefits as the various necessities of mankind made appropriate and 
welcome. In his great heart, there was room enough for those who 
had been excluded from the sympathy of little souls. In its spirit and 
design, the gospel overlooked none — least of all, the outcasts of a self- 
ish world. 

Can slavery, however modified, be consistent with such a gospel ? — 
a gospel which requires us, even amidst the highest forms of social life, 
to exert ourselves to raise the depressed by giving Our warmest sym- 
pathies to those who have the smallest share in the favor of the 
world ? 

Those who are in " bonds" are set before us as deserving an espe- 
cial remembrance. Their claims upon us are described as a modifi- 
cation of the Golden Rule — as one of the many forms to which its 
obligations are reducible. To them we are to extend the same affec- 
tionate regard as we would covet for ourselves, if the chains upon 
their limbs were fastened upon ours. To the benefits of this precept, 
the enslaved have a natural claim of the greatest strength. The 
wrongs they suffer spring from c. persecution which can hardly be sur- 
passed in malignancy. Their birth and complexion are the occasion 
of the insults and injuries which they can neither endure nor escape. 
It is for the work of God, and not their own deserts, that they are 
loaded with chains. This is persecution. 

Can I regard the slave as another self — can I put myself in his 
place — and be indifferent to his wrongs ? Especially, can I, thus af- 
fected, take sides with the oppressor ? Could I, in such a state of 
mind as the gospel requires me to cherish, reduce him to slavery or 
keep him in bonds ? Is not the precept under hand naturally sub- 
versive of every system and every form of slavery ? 

The general descriptions of the church, which are found here and 
there in the New Testament, are highly instructive in their bearing on 
the subject of slavery. In one connection, the following words meet 
the eye : "There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor 
free, there is neither male nor female ; for ye arc all one in Christ Je- 
Bos."* Here we havm — 1. A clear and strong description of the doc- 
trine of human equality. " Ye arc all one ;" — so much alike, so truly 
placed on common ground, all wielding each his own powers with such 
freedom, that one is the same as another. 

•Gal. iii.28. 



33 

2. This doctrine, self-evident in the light of reason, is affirmed on 
divine authority. " In Christ Jesus, ye are all one.'' Tlie natural 
equality of the human family is a part of the gospel. For — 

3. All the human family are included in this description. Whether 
men or wonnen, whether bond or free, whether Jews or Gentiles, all 
are alike entitled to the benefit of this doctrine. Wherever Chris- 
tianity prevails, the artificial distinctions which grow out of birth, con- 
dition, sex, are done away. Natural distinctions are not destroyed. 
They are recognized, hallowed, confirmed. The gospel docs not abol- 
ish the sexes, forbid a division of labor, or extinguish patriotism. It 
takes woman from beneath the feet, and places her by the side of man ; 
delivers the manual laborer from " the yoke," and gives him wages for 
his work ; and brings the Jew and the Gentile to embrace each other 
with frateraal love and confidence. Thus it raises all to a common 
level, gives to each the free use of his own powers and resources, binds 
all together in one dear and loving brotherhood. Such, according to 
the description of the apostle, was the influence, and such the effect of 
primitive Christianity. " Behold the picture !" Is it like American 
slavery, which, in all its tendencies and effects, is destructive of all one- 
ness among brethren ? 

" Where the spirit of the Lord is," exclaims the same apostle, with 
his eye upon the condition and relations of the church, " where the 
spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty." Where, then, may we re- 
verently recognize the presence, and bow before the manifested power, 
of this spirit? There, where the laborer may not choose how he shall 
be employed ! — in what way his wants shall be supplied ! — with whom 
he shall associate ! — who shall have the fruit of his exertions ! There, 
where he is not free to enjoy his wife and children ! There, where 
his body and his soul, his very "destiny,"* are placed altogether be- 
yond his control ! There, where every power is crippled, every energy 
blasted, every hope crushed ! There, where in all the rel?.tions and 
concerns of life, he is legally treated as if he had nothing to do with the 
laws of reason, the light of immortality, or the exercise of will ! Is the 
spirit of the Lord t/iere, where liberty is decried and denounced, mock- 
ed at and spit upon, betrayed and crucified! In the midst of a church 
which justified slavery, which derived its support from slavery, which 

* " Tlie legislature [of South Carolina] from time to time, has passed many re- 
stricted and penal acts, with a view to bring under direct control and subjection the 
DESTINY of the black population." Sec the Remonstrance of James S. Pope and 
352 others against home missionary efforts for the benefit of the enslaved — a most 
instructive paper. 

5 



34 

carried on its enterprises by means of slavery, would the apostle have 
found the fruits of the Spirit of the Lord ! Let that Spirit exert his in- 
fluences, and assert his o.uthorily, and wield his power, and slavery must 
vanish at once and for ever. 

In more than one connection, the apostle James describes Chris- 
tianity as ^'the law of liberty.''' It is, in other words, the law under 
which liberty cannot but live and flourish — the law in which hberty is 
clearly defined, strongly asserted, and well protected. As the law of 
liberty, how can it be consistent with the law of slavery ? The pre- 
sence and the power of tliis law are felt wherever the light of reason 
shines. They are felt in the uneasiness and conscious degradation of 
the slave, and in the shame and remorse which the master betrays in 
his reluctant and desperate efforts to defend himself. This law it is 
which has armed human nature against the oppressor. Wherever it is 
obeyed, "every yoke is broken." 

In these references to the New Testament we have a general de- 
scription of the primitive church, and the ■principles on which it was 
founded and fashioned. These principles bear the same relation to 
Christian history as to Christian character, since the former is occu. 
pied witli the development of the latter. What tlien is Christian 
character but Christian principle realized, acted out, bodied forth, and 
animated? Christian principle is the soul, of ivhich Christian charac. 
ter is the expression — the manifestation. It comprehends in itself, as 
a living seed, such Christian character, under every form, modification, 
and complexion. The former is, therefore, the test and interpreter of 
the latter. In the light of Christian principle, and in that light only, 
we can judge of and explain Christian character. Christian history is 
occupied with the forms, modifications, and various aspects of Chris- 
tian character. The facts which are there recorded serve to show, 
liow Christian principle lias fared in this world — how it has appeared, 
what it has done, how it lias been treated. In these facts we have the 
various institutions, usages, designs, doings, and sufferings of the church 
of Christ. And all these have of necessity, the closest relation to 
Christian principle. They are the production of its power. Through 
them, it is revealed and manifested. In its light, they are to be studied, 
explained, and understood. Witliout it they must be as unintelligible 
and insignificant as the letters of a book scattered on the wind. 

In tlie principles of Christianity, then, we have a com|)rehensive and 
faithful account of its ol)iects, institution.'?, and uinges — of how it must 
behave, and act, and sufler, in a world of sin and misery. For be- 
tween the [iririciples which God reveals, on the one hand, and the pre- 



35 

cepts he enjoins, the institutions he establishes, and the usages he ap- 
proves, on the other, there must be consistency and harmony. Other- 
wise we impute to God what we must abhor in man — practice at war 
with principle. Does the Savior, then, lay down the principle that our 
standing in the church must depend upon the habits, formed within us, of 
readily and heartily subserving the welfare of others ; and permit us 
in practice to invade the rights and trample on tl>e happiness of our 
fellows, by reducing them to slavery. Does he, in principle and by ex- 
ample, require us to go all lengths in rendering mutual service, or com. 
prehending offices the most menial, as well as the most honorable ; and 
permit us in practice to exact service of our brethren, as if they were 
notiiing better than " articles of merchandize ?" Does he require us 
in principle " to work with quietness and eat our own bread ;" and per- 
mit us in practice to wrest from our brethren the fruits of their unre- 
quited toil ? Does he i?i prijiciple require us, abstaining from every 
form of theft, to employ our powers in useful labor, not only to provide 
for ourselves but also to relieve the indigence of others; and permit us 
in practice, abstaining from every form of labor, to enrich and aggran- 
dize ourselves with the fruits of man-stealing ? Does he require us in 
principle to regard " the laborer as worthy of his hire ; and permit us 
in practice to defraud him of his wages ? Does he require us in princi- 
ple " '.o honor all men ; and permit us in practice to treat multitudes 
like cattle? Does he m p7nc«/»Ze prohibit " respect of persons ;" and 
permit us in practice to place the feet of the rich upon the necks of the 
poor? Does he in principle require us to sympathize with the bond- 
man as another self; and permit us in practice to leave him unpitied 
and unhelped in the hands of the oppressor? In principle, " where the 
Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty ;" in practice, is slavery the fruit 
of the Spirit, ? In principle, Christianity is the law of liberty ; i?', prac- 
tice, it is the law of slavery ? Bring practice in these various respects 
into harmony with principle, and what becomes of slavery? And if, 
where the divine government is concerned, practice is the expression 
of principle, and principle the standard and interpreter of practice, such 
harmony cannot but be maintained and must be asserted. In studying, 
therefore, fragments of history and sketches of biography — in disposing 
of references to institutions, usages, and facts in the New Testament, 
this necessary harmony between principle and practice in the govern- 
ment of God, should be continually present to the thoughts of the in- 
terpreter. Principles assert what practice must be. Whatever princi- 
ple condemns, God condemns. It belongs to those weeds of the dung- 
hill which, planted by " an enemy," his hand will assuredly " root up." 



36 

It is most certain then, that if slavery prevailed in the first ages of 
Christianity, it could nowhere have prevailed under its influence and 
with its sanction. 

THE CONDITION in which in its efforts to bless mankind, the 
primitive church was placed, must have greatly assisted the early Chris- 
tians in understanding and applying the principles of ihe gospel. Their 
Master was born in great obscurity, lived in the deepest poverty, and 
died the most ignominious death. The place of his residence, his fa- 
miliarity with the outcasts of society, his welcoming assistance and 
support from female hands, his casting his beloved mother, when he 
hung upon the cross, upon the charity of a disciple— such things evince 
the depth of his poverty, and show to what derision and contempt he 
must have been exposed. Could such an one, " despised and rejected 
of men — a man of sorrows and acquainted with grief," play the op- 
pressor, or smile on those who made merchandize of the poor ! 

And what was the history of the apostles, but an illustration of the 
doctrine, that " it is enough for the disciple, that he be as his Master ?" 
Were they lordly ecclesiastics, abounding with wealth, shining with 
splendor, bloated witii luxury ! Were they ambitious of distinction, 
fleecing, and trampling, and devouring " the flocks," that they them- 
selves might « have the pre-eminence !" Were they slaveholding 
bishops ! Or did they derive their support from the wages of iniquity 
and the price of blood ! Can such inferences bo drawn from the ac- 
count of their condition, which the most gifted and enterprising of their 
number has put upon record ? " Even unto this present hour, we both 
hunger, and thirst, and are naked, and are buffetted, and have no certain 
dwelling place, and labor working tvith our own hands. Being reviled, 
we bless ; being persecuted, we suffer it ; being deliimed, wc entreat ; 
we are made as the filth of the world, and are the offscouring of all 
THINGS unto this day.' * Are these the men who practised or counte- 
nanced slavery ? With such a temper, they would not ; //j such cir- 
cumstances, they COULD not. Exposed to " tribulation, distress, and 
persecution ;'" subject to famine and nakedness, to peril and tiie sword ; 
"killed all the day long; accounted as sheep for the slaughter,"! 
they would liave made but a sorry figure at the great. house or slave- 
market. 

Nor was the condition of the brethren, generally, better than that of 
the apostles. Tlic position of the apostles doubtless entitled them to 

• ICor. iv. 11-13. t Rom. viii. 35,.%. 



I 



37 

the strongest opposition, the heaviest reproaches, the fiercest persecu- 
tion. But derision and contempt must have been the lot of Christians 
generally. Surely we cannot think so ill of primitive Christianity as to 
suppose that believers, generally, refused to share in the trials and suf- 
ferino-s of their leaders ; as to suppose that while the leaders submitted 
to manual labor, to buffeting, to be reckoned the filth of the world, to be 
accounted as sheep for the slaughter, his brethren lived in affluence, 
ease, and honor ! despising manual labor ! and living upon the sweat 
of unrequited toil ! But on this point we are not left to mere inference 
and conjecture. The apostle Paul in the plainest language explains the 
ordination of Heaven. *' But God hath chosen the foolish things of 
the world to confound ihe wise ; and God hath chosen the weak things 
of the world to confound the things which are mighty ; and base things 
of the world, and things which are despised hath God chosen, yea, and 
THINGS WHICH ARE NOT, to bring to nouglit things that are."* Here 
we may well notice, 

1. That it was not by accident, that the primitive churches were 
made up of such elements, but the result of the Divine choice — an ar- 
rangement of His wise and gracious Providence. The inference is 
natural, that this ordination was co-extensive with the triumphs of 
Christianity. It was nothing new or strange, that Jehovah had con- 
cealed his o-lory " from the wise and prudent, and had revealed it unto 
babes," or that " the common people heard him gladly," while "not 
many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, had 
been called," 

2. The description of character, which the apostle records, could be 
adapted only to what are reckoned the very dregs of humanity. The 
foolish and the weak, the base and the contemptible, in the estimation 
of worldly pride and wisdom — these were they whose broken hearts 
were reached, and moulded, and refreshed by the gospel ; these were 
they whom the apostle took to his bosom as his own brethren. 

That slaves abounded at Corinth, may easily be admitted. They 
have a place in the enumeration of elements of which, according to 
the apostle, the church there was composed. The most remarkable 
class found there, consisted of "things which are not"— mere no- 
bodies, not admitted to the privileges of men, but degraded to a level 
with "goods and chattels;" of whom no account was made in such 
arrangements of society as subserved the improvement, and dignity, 
and happiness of mankind. How accurately this description applies to 
those who are crushed under the chattel principle ! 
♦ 1 Cor. i. 27, 28. 



The reference which the apostle makes to the " deep poverty of 
the churches of Macedonia,"* and this to stir up the sluggish libe- 
rality of his Corinthian brethren, naturally leaves the impression, that 
the latter were by no means inferior to the former in the gifts 
of Providence. But, pressed with want and pinched by poverty as 
were the believers in " Macedonia and Achaia, it pleased them to make 
a certain contribution for the poor saints which were at Jerusalem. "f 
Thus it appears, that Christians everywhere were familiar with con. 
tempt and indigence, so much so, that the apostle would dissuade such 
as had no families from assuming the responsibilities of the conjugal 
relation ! J 

Now, how did these good people treat each other ? Did the few 
among them, who were esteemed wise, mighty, or noble, exert their in- 
fluence and employ their power in oppressing the weak, in disposing 
of the "things that are not," as marketable commodities! — kneel- 
ing with them in prayer in the evening, and putting them up at auction 
the next morning ! Did the church sell any of the members to swell 
the " certain contribution for the poor saints at Jerusalem !" Far other- 
wise — as far as possible ! In those Christian communities where the 
influence of the apostles was most powerful, and where the arrange- 
ments drew forth their highest commendations, believers treated each 
other as brethren, in the strongest sense of that sweet word. So warm 
was their mutual love, so strong the public spirit, so open-handed and 
abundant the general liberality, that they are set forth as " having all 
things common."^ Slaves and their holders here? Neither the one 
aox the other could, in that relation to each other, have breathed such 
an atmosphere. The appeal of the kneeling bondman, " Am I not a 
man and a brother," must here have met with a prompt and powerful 
response. 

The tests by which our Savior tries the character of his professed 
disciples, shed a strong light upon the genius of the gospel. In one 
connection, II an inquirer demands of the Savior, " What good thing 
shall 1 do that I may have eternal life ?" After being reminded of the 
obligations which his social nature imposed upon him, he ventured, 
while claiming to be free from guilt in his relations to mankind, to de- 
mand, '• what lack I yet ?" The radical dtliciency under which his 
character labored, the Savior was not long or obscure in pointing out. 
"If th(ni wilt be perfect, go and sell that thou iiast and give to the 

• 2 Cor. viii. 2. + Rom. xv. 2G. t Cor. vii. 26, 27. 

^ ActB, iv. .32. II Lull'-, xviii. lB-2.'"). 



39 

poor, and thou shalt have treasure in heaven ; and come and follow 
me." On this passage it is natural to suggest — 

1. That we have here a test of universal amplication. The rectitude 
and benevolence of our Savior's character forbid us to suppose, that he 
would subject this inquirer, especially as he was highly amiable, to a 
trial, where eternal life was at stake, peculiarly severe. Indeed, the 
test seems to have been only a fair exposition of t!;e second great com- 
mand, and of course it must be applicable to all who are placed under 
the oblio-ations of that precept. Those who cannot stand this test, as 
their character is radically imperfect and unsound, must, with the in- 
quirer to whom our Lord applied it, be pronounced unfit for the king- 
dom of heaven. 

2. The least that our Savior can in that passage be understood tode- 
mand is, that we disinterestedly and heartily devote ourselves to the 
welfare of mankind, " the poor" especially. We are to put ourselves 
on a level with them, as we must do " in selling that we have" for their 
benefit in other words, in employing our powers and resources to ele- 
vate their character, condition, and prospects. This our Savior did ; 
and if we refuse to enter into sympathy and co-operation with him, 
how can we be his followers ? Apply this test to the slaveholder. In- 
stead of " selling that he hath" for the benefit of the poor, he buys the 
POOK, and exacts their sweat with stripes, to enable him to " clothe 
himself in purple and fine linen, and fare sumptuously every day ;" 
or, HE SELLS THE POOR to support the gospel and convert the 
heathen ! 

What, in describing the scenes of the final judgment, does our Sav- 
ior teach us ? By what standard must our character be estimated, 
and the retributions of eternity be awarded ? A standard, which both 
the righteous and the wicked will be surprised to see erected. From 
the " ofFscouring of all things," the meanest specimen of humanity 
will be selected— a " stranger" in the hands of the oppressor, naked, 
hungry, sickly ; and this stranger, placed in the midst of the assem- 
bled°universe, by the side of the sovereign Judge, will be openly ac- 
knowledged as his representative. " Glory, honor, and immortality," 
will be the reward of those who had recognized and clieercd their 
Lord through his outraged poor. And tribulation, anguish, and des- 
pair, will sdze on "every soul of man" who had neglected or des- 
pised them. But whom, within the limits of our country, are we to 
regard especially as the representatives of our final Judge ? Every 



40 

feature of the Savior's picture finds its appropriate original in our 
enslaved countrymen. 

1. They are the least of his brethren. 

2. They are subject to thirst and hunger, unable to comnnand a cup 
of water or a crumb of bread. 

3. They are exposed to wasting sickness, without the ability to 
procure a nurse or employ a physician. 

4>. They are emphatically " in prison,'' restrained by chains, goaded 
with whips, tasked, and under keepers. Not a wretch groans in any 
cell of the prisons of our country, who is exposed to a confinement 
so vigorous and heart-breaking as the law allows theirs to be continu- 
ally and permanently. 

5. And then they are emphatically, and peculiarly, and exclusively, 
STRANGERS — Strangers in the land which gave them birth. Whom 
else do we constrain to remain aliens in the midst of our free institu- 
tions? The Welch, the Swiss, the Irish? The Jews even? Alas, 
it is the negro only, who may not strike his roots into our soil. 
Every where we have conspired to treat him as a stranger — every 
where he is forced to feel himself a stranger. In the stage and 
steamboat, in the parlor and at our tables, in the scenes of business 
and in the scenes of amusement — even in the church of God and at the 
communion table, he is regarded as a stranger. The intelligent and 
religious are generally disgusted and horror-struck at the thought of 
his becoming identified with the citizens of our republic — so much so, 
that thousands of them have entered into a conspiracy to send him off" 
" out of sight," to find a home on a foreign shore ! — and justify them- 
selves by openly alleging, that a " single drop" of his blood, in the 
veins of any human creature, must make him hateful to iiis fellow citi- 
zens ! — That nothing but banishment from " our coasts," can redeem 
him from I he scorn and contempt to which his " stranger" blood has 
reduced him among his own mother's children ! 

Who, then, in this land "of milk and honey," is " hungry ond 
athirst," but the man from whom the law takes away the last crumb of 
bread and the smallest drop of water ? 

Who "naked," but the man whom the law strijis of the la.st rag of 
clothing? 

Who " sick," but the man whom the law deprives of the power of 
procuring medicine or sending for a physician ? 

Who " in prison," but the man who, all his life, is untler the control 
of merciless masters and cruel keepers? 

Who a " stranger," but the man who is scornfully denied the 



41 

cheapest courtesies of life — who is treated as an aHen in his native 
country ? 

There is one point in this awful description which deserves partic 
ular attention. Those who are doomed to the left hand of the Judge, 
are not charged with inflicting positive injuries on their helpless, 
needy, and oppressed brother. Theirs was what is often called neg- 
ative character. What they had done is not described in the indict- 
ment. Their neglect of duty, what they had not done, was the 
ground of their " everlasting punishment." The representative of 
their Judge, they had seen a hungered and they gave him no meat, 
thirsty and they gave him no drink, a stranger and they took him not 
in, naked and they clothed him not, sick and in prison and they visited 
him not. In as much as they did not yield to the claims of suffering 
humanity — did not exert themselves to bless the meanest of the hu- 
man family, they were driven away in their wickedness. But what 
if the indictment had run thus : I was a hungered and ye snatched 
away the crust which might have saved me from starvation ; I was 
thirsty and ye dashed to the ground the " cup of cold water," 
which might have moistened my parched lips ; I was a stranger and 
ye drove me from the hovel which might have sheltered me from the 
piercing wind ; I was sick and ye scourged me to my task ; in prison 
and you sold me for my jail-fees — to what depths of hell must not 
those who were convicted under such charges be consigned ! And 
what is the history of American slavery but one long indictment, des- 
cribing under ever-varying forms and hues just such injuries ! 

Nor should it be forgotten, that those who incurred the displeasure 
of their Judge, took far other views than he, of their own past history. 
Tlie charges which he brought against them, they heard with great 
surprise. They were sure that they had never thus turned away 
from his necessities. Indeed, when had they seen him thus subject 
to poverty, insult, and oppression ? Never. And as to that poor 
friendless creature, whom they left unpitied and unhclped in the hands 
of the oppressor, and whom their Judge now presented as his own re- 
presentative, they never once supposed, that he had any claims on 
their compassion and assistance. Had they known, that he was des- 
tined to so prominent a place at the final judgment, they would have 
treated him as a human being, in despite of any social, pecuniary, or 
political considerations. But neither their ncgatice virtue nor their 
voluntary ignorance could shield them from the pena! fire which their 
selfishness had kindled. 

Now amidst the general maxims, the leading principles, the <' great 



42 

commandments" of the gospel ; amidst its comprehensive descriptions 
and authorized tests of Christian character, we should lake our position 
in disposing of any particular allusions to such forms and usages of 
the primitive churches as are supported by divine authority. The 
latter must be interpreted and understood in the light of the former. 
But how do the apologists and defenders of slavery proceed ? Placing 
themselves amidst the arrangements and usages which grew out of the 
corruptions of Christianity, they make these the standard by which the 
gospel is to be explained and understood ! Some Recorder or Justice, 
without the light of inquiry or the aid of a jury, consigns the negro 
whom the kidnapper has dragged into his presence to the horrors of 
slavery. As the poor wretch shrieks and faints, Humanity shudders 
and demands why such atrocities are endured. Some " priest" 
or " Levite," " passing by on the other side," quite self-possessed 
and alPcomplacent, reads in reply from his broad phylactery, Paul sent 
hack Onesimus to Philemon ! Yes, echoes the negro-hating mob, 
made up of " gentlemen of property and standing" together with equally 
gentle-men reeking from the gutter ; Yes — Paul sent hack Onesimus 
to PhUem,on ! And Humanity, brow-beaten, stunned with noise 
and tumult, is pushed aside by the crowd ! A fair specimen this of 
the manner in which modern usages are made to interpret the sacred 
Scriptures ? 

Of the particular passages in the New Testament on which the 
apologists for slavery especially rely, the epistle to Philemon first de- 
mands our attention. 

1. This letter was written by the apostle Paul while a " prisoner of 
Jesus Christ" at Rome. 

2. Philemon was a benevolent and trustworthy member of the 
church at Colosse, at whose house the disciples of Christ held their as- 
semblies, and who owed his conversion, under God, directly or indi- 
rectly to the ministry of Paul. 

3. Onesimus was the servant of Philemon ; under a relation which it 
is difficult with accuracy and certainty to define. His condition, 
though servile, could not have been like that of an American slave ; as, 
in that case, however he might have "wronged" Philemon, he could 
not also have '■^ owed him aught.'"* The American slave is, according 
to law, as much the property of his master us any other chattel ; and 
can no more "owe" his master than can a siicep or a hors«. The 
basis of all pecuniary obligations lies in some " value received." How 

Philemon, 18. 



43 

can " an article of merchandise" stand on this basis and sustain com- 
mercial relations to its owner ? There is no person to offer or promise. 
Personality is swallowed up in America7i slavery ! 

4. How Onesimus found his way to Rome it is not easy to deter- 
mine. He and Philemon appear to have parted from each other on 
ill terms. The general character of Onesimus, certainly, in his re- 
lation to Philemon, had been far from attractive, and he seems to 
have left him without repairing the wrongs he had done him or pay- 
ing the debts which he owed him. At Rome, by the blessing of God 
upon the exertions of the apostle, he was brought to reflection and re- 
pentance. 

5. In reviewing his history in the light of Christian truth, he be- 
came painfully aware of the injuries he had inflicted on Philemon. He 
longed for an opportunity for frank confession and full restitution. 
Having, however, parted with Philemon on ill terms, he knew not how 
to appear in his presence. Under such embarrassments, he naturally 
sought sympathy and advice of Paul. His influence upon Philemon, 

Onesimus knew must be powerful, especially as an apostle. 

6. A letter in behalf of Onesimus was therefore written by the apos- 
tle to Philemon. After such salutations, benedictions, and thanksgiv- 
ing as the good character and useful life of Philemon naturally drew 
from the heart of Paul, he proceeds to the object of the letter. He 
admits that Onesimus had behaved ill in the service of Philemon ; not 
in running away, for how they had parted with each other is not ex- 
plained ; but in being unprofitable and in refusing to pay the debts* 
which he had contracted. But his character had undergone a radi- 
cal change. Thenceforward fidelity and usefulness would be his aim 
and mark his course. And as to any pecuniary obligations which he 
had violated, the apostle authorized Philemon to put them on his ac- 
count, f Thus a way was fairly opened to the heart of Philemon. 
And now what does the apostles ask ? 

7. He asks that Philemon would receive Onesimus, How? "Not 
Q.S di servant, but aJoue a servant. "| How much above? Philemon 
was to receive him as " a son" of the apostle — " as a brother beloved" 
— nay, if he counted Paul a partner, an equal, he was to receive Onesi- 
mus as he would receive the apostle himself.^ So much above a ser- 
vant was he to receive him ! 

8. But was not this request to be so interpreted and complied with 
as to put Onesimus in the hands of Philemon as " an article of mer- 

* Verse 11, 18, + Verse 18. t Verse 16. § Verse 10, 16, 17, 



44 

chandise," carnally, while it raised him to the dignity of a " brother 
beloved," spiritually ? In other words, might not Philemon consist- 
ently with the request of Paul have reduced Onesimus to a chattel, as 
A MAN, while he admitted him fraternally to his bosom, as a Chris- 
tian ? Such gibberish in an apostolic epistle ! Never. As if, how- 
ever to guard against such folly, the natural product of mist and moon- 
shine, the apostle would have Onesimus raised above a servant to the 
dignity of a brother beloved, "both in the flesh and in the Lord ;"* 
as a man and Christian, in all the relations, circumstances, and respon- 
sibilities of life. 

It is easy now with definiteness and certainty to determine in what 
sense the apostle in such connections uses the word " brother." It de- 
scribes a relation inconsistent with and opposite to the servile. It is 
"not" the relation of a "servant." It elevates its subject "above" 
the servile condition. It rai.ses him to full equality with the master, to 
the same equality, on which Paul and Philemon stood side by side as 
brothers ; and this, not in some vague, undefined, spiritual sense, af- 
fecting the soul and leaving the body in bonds, but in every way, " both 
in the flesh and in the Lord." This matter deserves pjirticular and 
earnest attention. It sheds a strong light on other lessons of apostolic 
instruction. 

9. It is greatly to our purpose, moreover, to observe that the apostle 
clearly defines the 7noral character of his request. It was fit, proper, 
right, suited to the nature and relation of things — a thing which ought 
to be done.f On this account, he might have urged it upon Philemon 
in the form of an injunction, on apostolic authority and with great bold, 
ness. J The very nature of the request made it obligatory on Philemon. 
He was sacredly bound, out of regard to the fitness of things, to admit 
Onesimus to full equality with himself — to treat him as a brother both 
in the Lord and as having flesh — as a fellow man. Thus were the in- 
alienable rights and birthright privileges of Onesimus, as a member of 
the human family, defined and protected by apostolic authority. 

10. The apostle preferred a request instead of imposing a command, 
on the ground of charity. § He would give Philemon an opportunily 
of discharging his obligulions under the imi)ulsc of love. To this im- 
pulse, he was confident Philemon would promptly and fully yield. How 

•Verse 16. 

t Verse 8. To avitKov. See Robinson's New Testament Lexicon ; " it is fit, pro- 
per, l)erominf!,it oufflit." In what Bcnso Kinpf James' translators used the word 
" convunienl" any one may s(!i; who will read Rom. i. 28. and Epk. v. 3, 4. 

I Verse B. I) Verse 9 — ^la rnv nymriiv. 



45 

could he do otherwise ? The thing itself was right. The request re- 
specting it came from a benefactor, to whom, under God, he was under 
the highest obligations.* That benefactor, now an old man, and in the 
hands of persecutors, manifested a deep and tender interest in the mat- 
ter, and had the strongest persuasion that Philemon was more ready to 
grant than himself to entreat. The result, as he was soon to visit Col- 
losse, and had commissioned Philemon to prepare a lodging for hin), 
must come under the eye of the apostle. The request was so manU 
festly reasonable and obligatory, that the apostle, after all, described a 
compliance with it, by the strong word " obedience. "-\ 

Now, how must all this have been understood by the church at Co- 
losse ? — a church, doubtless, made up of such materials as the church 
at Corinth, that is, of members chiefly from the humblest walks of life. 
Many of them had probably felt the degradation and tasted the bitter- 
ness of the servile condition. Would they have been likelj'^ to inter- 
pret the apostle's letter under the bias of feelings friendly to slavery ! — 
And put the slaveholder's construction on its contents ! Would their 
past experience or present suflferings — for doubtless some of them were 
still " under the yoke" — have suggested to their thoughts such glosses 
as some of our theological professors venture to pur upon the words of 
the apostle ! Far otherwise. The Spirit of the Lord was there, and 
the epistle was read in the light of " liberty.^' It contained the princi- 
ples of holy freedom, faithfully and affectionately applied. This must 
have made it precious in the eyes of such men " of low degree" as were 
most of the believers, and welcome to a place in the sacred canon. 
There let it remain as a luminous and powerful defence of the cause of 
emancipation ! 

But what saith Professor Stuart ? " If any one doubts, let him take 
the case of Paul's sending Onesimus back to Philemon, with an apolo- 
gy for his running away, and sending him back to be his servant lor 
hfe."t 

" Paul sent back Onesimus to Philemon." By what process? Did 
the apostle, a prisoner at Rome, seize upon the fugitive, and drag him 
before some heartless and perfidious " Judge," for authority to send 
him back to Colosse ? Did he hurry his victim away from the presence 
of the fat and supple magistrate, to be driven under chains and the lash 
to the field of unrequited toil, whence he had escaped? Had thoapos- 
tie been like some teachers in the American churches, he might, as a 
professor of sacred literature in one of our seminaries, or a preacher 

* Verso 19. t Verse 21. X Sec his letter to Dr. Fisk, supra pp. 7, 8. 



of the gospel to the rich in some of our cities, have consented thus to 
subserve the " pecuhar" interests of a dear slaveholding brother. But 
the venerable champion of truth and freedom was himself under 
bonds in the imperial city, waiting for the crown of martyrdom. He 
wrote a letter to the church a Colosse, which was accustomed to meet 
at the house of Philemon, and another letter to that magnanimous dis- 
ciple, and sent them by the liand of Onesimus. So much for the way 
in which Onesimus was sent back to his master. 

A slave escapes from a patriarch in Georgia, and seeks a refuge in 
the parish of the Connecticut doctor of Divinity, who once gave public 
notice that he saw no reason for caring for the servitude of his fellow 
men.* Under his influence, Caesar becomes a Christian convert. 
Burning with love for the son whom he hath begotten in the gospel, 
our doctor resolves to send him back to his master. Accordingly, he 
■writes a letter, gives it to Caesar, and bids him return, staff in hand, to 
the "corner-stone of our republican institutions." Now, what would 
any Caesar do, who had ever felt a link of slavery's chain ? As he left 
his spiritualjather, should we be surprised to hear him say to himself, 
What, return of my own accord to the man who, with the hand of a 
robber, plucked me from my mother's bosom ! — for whom I have been 
so often drenched in the sweat of unrequited toil! — whose violence so 
often cut my flesh and scarred my limbs ! — who shut out every ray of 
light from my mind ! — who laid claim to those honors to which my 
Creator and Redeemer only are entitled ! And for what am I to re- 
turn ? To be cursed, and smitten, and sold ! To be tempted, and torn, 
and destroyed ! I cannot thus throw myself away — thus rush upon my 
own destruction. 

Who ever heard of the voluntary return of a fugitive from American 
oppression ? Do you think that tiie doctor and his friends could per- 
saade one to carry a letter to the patriarch from whom he had escaped ? 
And must we believe this of Onesimus ? 

"Paul .sent back Onesimus to Philemon." On what occasion? — 
" If," writes the apostle," he hath wronged thee, or oweth the aught, 
put that on my account." Alive to the claims of duty, Onesimus 
would " restore" whatever he " had taken away." He would honestly 
pay his debts. This resolution the apostle warmly approved. He 
was ready, at whatever expense, to liclp iiis young discij)lc in carrying 
it into full cficct. Of this he assured Philemon, in language the most 

• " Why should I care ?" 



47 

explicit and emphatic. Here we find one reason for the conduct of 
Paul in sending Onesimus to Philemon. 

If a fugitive slave of the Rev. Dr. Smylie, of Mississippi, should re- 
turn to him with a letter from a doctor of divinity in New-York, con- 
taining such an assurance, how would the reverend slaveholder dispose 
of it ? What, he exclaims, have we here ? " If Cato has not been up- 
right in his pecuniary intercourse with you — if he owes you any thing — 
put that on my account." What ignorance of southern institutions! 
What mockery, to talk of pecuniary intercourse between a slave and 
his master ! The slave himself, with all he is and has, is an article of 
merchandise. What can he owe his master ? A rustic may lay a 
wager with his mule, and give the creature the peck of oats which he 
had permitted it to win. But who, in sober earnest, would call this a 
pecuniary transaction ? 

" To BE HIS SERVANT FOR LIFE !" From what part of the epistle 
could the expositor have evolved a thought so soothing to tyrants — so 
revolting to every man who loves his own nature ? From this ? " For 
perhaps he therefore departed for a season, that thou shouldst receive 
him for ever." Receive him how? As a servant, exclaims our com- 
mentator. But what wrote the apostle ? " Not noio as a servant, but 
above a servant, a brother beloved, especially to me, but how much 
more unto thee, both in the flesh and in the Lord." Who authorized 
the professor to bereave the word "not" of its negative influence 1 Ac- 
cording to Paul, Philemon was to receive Onesimus " 7iot as a servant ;" 
— according to Stuart, he was to receive him '^ as a servant!" If the 
profi.ssor will apply the same rules of exposition to the writings of the 
abolitionists, all difference between him and them must in his view pre- 
sently vanish away. The harmonizing process would be equally sim- 
ple and effectual. He has only to understand them as affirming what 
they deny, and as denying what they affirm. 

Suppose that Professor Stuart had a son residing at the South. His 
slave, having stolen money of his master, effected his escape. He fled 
to Andover, to find a refuge among the " sons of the prophets." There 
he finds his way to Professor Stuart's house, and offers to render any 
service which the professor, dangerously ill " of a typhus fever," might 
require. He is soon found to be a most active, skilful, faithful nurse. 
He spares no pains, night and day, to make himself useful to the vene- 
rable' sufferer. He anticipates every want. In the most delicate and 
tender manner, he tries to sooth every pain. He fastens himself 
strongly on the heart of the reverend object of his care. Touched 
with the heavenly spirit, the meek demeanor, the submissive frame, 



48 

which the sick bed exhibits, Archy becomes a Christian. A new bond 
now ties him and his convalescent teacher together. As soon as he is 
able to write, the professor sends Archy with the following letter to the 
South, to Isaac Stuart, Esq : — 

" My Dear Son, — With a hand enfeebled by a distressing and dan- 
gerous illness, from which I am slowly recovering, I address you on a 
subject which lies very near my heart. I have a request to urge, which 
our mutual relation to each other, and your strong obligations to me, 
will, I cannot doubt, make you eager fully to grant. I say a request, 
though the thing I ask is, in its very nature and on the principles of 
the gospel, obligatory upon you. I might, therefore, boldly demand, 
what I earnestly entreat. But I know how generous, magnani- 
mous, and Christ-like you are, and how readily you will " do even 
more than I say" — I, your own father, an old man, almost exhausted 
with multiplied exertions for the benefit of my family and my country^ 
and now just rising, emaciated and broken, from the brink of the grave. 
I write in behalf of Archy, whom I regard with the affection of a father, 
and whom, indeed,' I have forgotten in my sickness.' Gladly would I 
have retained him, to be an Isaac to mc ; for how often did not his 
soothing voice, and skilful hand, and unwearied attention to my wants, 
remind me of you ! But I chose to give you an opportunity of mani- 
festing, voluntarily, the goodness of your heart ; as, if I had retained 
him with me, you might seem to have been forced to grant what you 
will gratefully bestow. His temporary absence from you may have 
opened the way for his permanent continuance with you. Not now as 
a slave. Heaven forbid ! But superior to a slave. Superior, did I 
say ? Take him to your bosom, as a beloved brother ; for I own him 
as a son, and regard him as such, in all the relations of life, both as a 
man and a Christian. ' Receive lum as myself.' And that nothing 
may hinder you from complying with my request at once, I hereby pro- 
mise, without adverting to your many and great obligations to mc, to 
pay you every cent which he took from your drawer. Any preparation 
which my comfort with you may require, you will make without much 
delay, when you learn, that I intend, as .soon as I shall be able 'to per- 
form tiic journey,' to make you a visit." 

And what if Dr. Baxter, in giving an account of this letter should 
publicly declare that Professor Stuart, of Andover regarded slavehold- 
ing as lawful ; for that " he had sent Archy back to his son Isaac, with 
an apology for his running away" to be held in perpetual slavery ? 



49 

With what propriety might not the professor exclaim : False, every 
syllable false. I sent him back, not to be held as a slave, but re- 
cognized as a dear brother, in all respects, under every relation, civil and 
ecclesiastical. I bade my son receive Arcliy as myself. If this was 
not equivalent to a requisition to set him fully and most honorably free, 
and that, too, on the ground of natural obligation and Christian princi- 
ple, then I know not how to frame such a requisition. 

I am well aware that my supposition is by no means strong enough 
fully to illustrate the case to which it is applied. Professor Stuart 
lacks apostolical authority. Isaac Stuart is not a leading member of a 
church consisting, as the early churches chiefly consisted, of what the 
world regard as the dregs of society — "the ofTscouring of all things." 
Nor was slavery at Colosse, it seems, supported by such barbarous 
usages, such horrid laws as digrace the South. 

But it is time to turn to another passage which, 'in its bearing on 
the subject in hand, is, in our view, as well as in the view of Dr. Fisk, 
and Prof. Stuart, in the highest degree authoritative and instructive. 
" Let as many servants as are under the yoke count the'r own mas- 
ters worthy of all honor, that the name of God anr! ;. 'octrines be 
not blasphemed. And they that have believing .K-^tpj them not 

despise them because they are brethren ; but j-ariior du service, 

because they are faithful and beloved, partakers ct the 1 * 

* 1 Tim. vi. 1. 2. The following exposition of this p.' - nen 

of Elizur Wright, Jr. : — 

" This word [avTiKafijiavtaOai] in our humble opinion, has 
used by the commentators, that we feel constrained to takt '? part. ' 
excellent translators, in rendering the clause ' partakers of the bei. 'fit,' evidei; V.\ 
lost sight of the component preposition, which expresses the oppos 
procity, rather than the connection of participation. They have givei. 
the sense of iJcraXafiPamv, (2 Tim. ii. 6.) Had the apostle intend., 
sense, he would have used the latter verb, or one of the more commoi. 
HCToxoi, KoivuvovvTCi, &c. (ScB Hcb. ill. 1, and 1 Tim. v. 22, wliere the 
word is used in the clause, ' neither be partaker of other men's sins.' Had 
verb in our text been used, it might have been rendered, ' neither be the part-tak,. 
of other men's sins.') The primary sense of iiiriAa/i/iKi/w is to take in return 
— to take instead of, ^c. Hence, in the middle with the genitive, it signifies 
assist, or do one's part towards the person or thing expressed by that genitive. 
In this sense only is the word used in the New Testament. — (See Luke i. 54, and 
Acts, XX. 35.) If this be true, the word evtiiysaai cannot signify the benefit 
conferred by the gospel, as our common version would make it, but the well-doing 
of the servants, who should continue to serve their believing masters, while they 
were no longer under the yoke of compulsion. This word is used elsewhere in the 
New Testament but once (Acts. iv. 3.) in relation to the ' good deed ' done to the 
impotent man. The plain import of the clause, unmystified by the commonfa 
7 



50 

1. The apostle addresses himself here to two classes ol' servants, 
with instructions to each respectively appropriate. Both the one 
class and the other, in Professor Stuart's eye, were slaves. This he 
assumes, and thus begs the very question in dispute. The term ser- 
vant is generic, as used by the sacred writers. It comprehends all 
the various offices which men discharge for the benefit of each other, 
however honorable, or however menial ; from that of an apostle * 
opening the path to heaven, to that of washing " one another's feet."t 
A general term it is, comprehending every office which belongs to 
human relations and Christian character.| 

A leading signification gives us the manual laborer, to whom, in the 
division of labor, muscular exertion was allotted. As in his exertions 
the bodily powers are especially employed — such powers as belong to 
man in common with mere animals — his sphere has generally been 
considered low and humble. And as intellectual power is superior to 
bodily, the manual laborer has always been exposed in very numerous 
ways and in various degrees to oppression. Cunning, intrigue, the 
oily tongue, have, through extended and powerful conspiracies, 
brought the resources of society under the control of the few, who 
stood aloof from his homely toil. Hence his dependence upon them. 
Hence the multiplied injuries which have fallen so heavily upon him. 
Hence the reduction of his wages from one degree to another, till at 
length, in the case of millions, fraud and violence strip him of his all, 
blot his name from the record of mankind, and, putting a yoke upon 
his neck, drive him away to toil among the cattle. Here you Jind the 
slave. To reduce the servant to his condition, requires abuses altoge- 
ther monstrous — injuries reaching the very vitals of man — stabs upon 
the very heart of humanity. Now, what right has Professor Stuart 
to make the word " servants," comprehending, even as manual labor- 
ers, so many and such various meanings, signify " slaves," especially 
where diflferent classes are concerned ? Such a right he could never 
have derived from humanity, or philosophy, or hermeneutics. It is 
his by sympathy with the oppressor ? 

Yes, dilfercnt classes. This is implied in the term ' as many,"^ 
which sets apart the class now to be addressed. From these he pro- 

torn, is, that believing maBtors would not fail to do their part towards, or en- 
courage by suitable returns, the free service of those who had once been under 
the ij'ilic." 

• Cor. iv. 5. t John, xiii. 14. t Mat. xx. 26-28 

^ Oaot, See Passow's Schneider. 



51 

ceeds to others, who are introduced by a particle,* whose natural 
meanino- indicates the presence of another and a different subject. 

2. The first class are described as *' under the yoke" — a yoke from 
which they were, according to the apostle, to make their escape if 
possible. f If not, they must in every way regard the master with re- 
spect — bowing to his authority, working his will, subserving his inter- 
ests so far as might be consistent with Christian character.:}: And 
this, to prevent blasphemy — to prevent the pagan master from heaping 
profane reproaches upon the name of God and the doctrines of the 
gospel. They should beware of rousing his passions, which, as his 
helpless victims, they might be unable to allay or withstand. 

But all the servants whom the apostle addressed were not " under the 
yoke"^ — an instrument appropriate to cattle and to slaves. These 
he distinguishes from another class, who instead of a " yoke" — 
the badge of a slave — had " believing masters." To have a "helievivg 
master" ihen^ was equivalent to freedom from ^^ the yoke." These 
servants were exhorted not to despise their masters. What need of 
such an exhortation, if their masters had been slaveholders, holding 
them as property, wielding them as mere instruments, disposing of 
them as " articles of merchandise ?" But this was not consistent with 
believing. Faith, ** breaking every yoke," united master and ser- 
vants in the bonds of brotherhood. Brethren they were, joined in a 
relation which, excluding the yoke,|| placed them side by side on the 
ground of equality, where, each in his appropriate sphere, they might 
exert themselves freely and usefully, to the mutual benefit of each 
other. Here, servants might need to be cautioned against getting 
above their appropriate business, putting on airs, despising their mas- 
ters, and thus declining or neglecting their service. IF Instead of this, 
they should be, as emancipated slaves often have been,** models of en- 
terprise, fidelity, activity, and usefulness — especially as their masters 
were " worthy of their confidence and love," their helpers in this well- 
doing. 

Such, then, is the relation between those who, in the view of Profes- 
sor Stuart; were Christian masters and Christian slavesff — the relation 

* As. See Passow. 

t See 1 Cor. vii. 21 — AXX' tt Kai S w a a a i eXevdcpof yovcaOai. 

X 1 Cor. vii. 23 — Mj; yivcaOE iovKoi avdpanuyv. 

§ See Lev. xxvi. 13 ; Isa. Iviii. 6, 9. 

II Supra p. 44. If See Mat. vi. 24. 

** Those, for instance, set free by that "believing master" James G. Bimey. 

tt Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra, p. 7. 



52 

of " brethren," which, excluding " the yoke," and of course confer, 
ring freedom, placed them side by side on the common ground of mutu- 
al service, both retaining, for convenience sake, the one while giving 
and the other while receiving employment, the correlative name, as is 
usual ifi such cases, under which they had been known. Such was 
the instruction which Timothy was required, as a Christian minister, to 
give. Was it friendly to slaveholding ? 

And on what gi-ound, according to the Princeton professor, did 
these masters and these servants stand in their relation to each other ? 
On that of a "perfect religious equality."* In all the relations, duties, 
and privileges — in all the objects, interests, and prospects, which belong 
to the province of Christianity, servants were as free as their master. 
The powers of the one, were allowed as wide a range and as free an 
exercise, with as warm encouragements, as active aids, and as high re- 
sults, as the other. Here, the relation of a servant to his master im- 
posed no restrictions, involved no embarrassments, occasioned no in- 
jury. All this, clearly and certainly, is implied in "perfect religious 
equality," which the Princeton professor accords to servants in relation 
to their master. Might the master, then, in order more fully to attain 
the great ends for which he was created and redeemed, freely exert 
himself to increase his acquaintance with his own powers, and rela- 
tions, and resources — with his prospects, opportunities, and advan- 
tages? So might his servants. Was he at liberty to " study to ap- 
prove himself to God," to submit to his will and bow to his authority, as 
the sole standard of affection and exertion ? So were they. Was he at 
liberty to sanctify the Sabbath, and frequent the " solemn assembly ?" So 
were they. Was he at liberty so to honor the filial, conjugal, and paternal 
relations, as to find in them that spring of activity and that source of en- 
joyment, which they arc capable of yielding ? So were tiny. In every 
department of interest and exertion, they might use their capacities, and 
wield their powers, and improve their opportunities, and employ their 
resources, as freely as he, in glorifying God, in blessing mankind, and 
in laying up imperishable treasures for themselves ! Give perfect re- 
ligious equality to the AmeKican slave, and the most eager abolitionist 
must be satisfied. Such equality would, like the breath of the Al- 
miglity, dissolve the last link of the chain of servitude. Dare those 
who, for the benefit of slavery, have given so wide and active a circu- 
lation to the Pittsburg pamphlet, make the experiment ? 

In the epistle to the Colossians, the following passage deserves earn- 
est attention : — " Servants, obey in all things your masters according 
• Pittsburg Pamphlet, y. 9. 



53 

to the flesh ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers ; but in singleness 
of lieart, fearing God : and whatsoever ye do, do it heartily, as to the 
Lord, and not unto men ; knowing, that of the Lord ye shall re- 
ceive the reward of the inheritance ; for ye serve the Lord Christ. 
But he that doeth wrong shall receive for the wrong which he hath 

done : and there is no respect of persons. Masters, give unto 

your servants that which is just and equal ; knowing that ye have a 
Master in heaven."* 

Here it is natural to remark — 

1. That in maintaining the relation, which mutually united them, 
both masters and servants were to act in conformity with the princi- 
pies of the divine government. Whatever they did, servants were to 
do in hearty obedience to the Lord, by whose authority they were to 
be controlled and by whoso hand they were to be rewarded. To the 
same Lord, and according to the same law, was the master to hold 
himself responsible. Both the one and the other were of course equally 
at liberty and alike required to "study and apply the standard, hy ivhich 
they were to be governed a?id judged. 

2. The basis of the government under which they thus were placed, 
was righteousness — strict, stern, impartial. Nothing here of bias or 
antipathy. Birth, wealth, station, — the dust of the balance noi so light ! 
Both master and servants were hastening to a tribunal, where nothing 
of " respect of persons" could be feared or hoped for. There the 
wrong-doer, whoever he might be, and whether from the top or bottom 
of society, must be dealt with according to his deservings. 

3. Under this government, servants were to be universally and 
heartily obedient ; and both in the presence and absence of the mas- 
ter, faithfully to discharge their obligations. The master on his part, 
in his relations to the servants, waste make justice and EQUALirr the 
standard of his conduct. Under the authority of such instructions, 
slavery falls discountenanced, condemned, abhorred. It is flagrantly 
at war with the government of God, consists in " respect of persons" 
the most shameless and outrageous, treads justice and equality under 
foot, and in its natural tendency and practical eflfects is nothing else 
than a system of wrong-doing. What have they to do with the just 
and the equal who in their " respect of persons" proceed to such a 
pitch as to treat one brother as a thing because he is a servant, and 
place him, without the least regard to his welfare here, or his prospects 
hereafter, absolutely at the disposal of another brother, under the name 

• Col iii. 22 to iv. 1. 



54 

of master, in the relation of owner to property ? Justice and equality 
on the one hand, and the chattel principle on the other, are naturally 
subversive of each other — proof clear and decisive that the correlates, 
masters and servants, cannot here be rendered slaves and owners, 
without the grossest absurdity and the greatest violence. 

"Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to 
the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto 
Christ ; not with eye-service, as men-pleasers ; but as the servants 
of Christj doing the will of God from the heart ; with good will 
doing service, as to the Lord, and not to men : knowing that what- 
soever good thing any man doeth, the same shall he receive of the 
Lord, whether he he bond or free. And, ye masters, do the same 
things unto them, forbearing threatening: knowing that your Master 
also is in heaven ; neither is there respect of persons with him."* 

Without repeating here what has already been offered in expo- 
sition of kindred passages, it may be sufficient to say : — 

1. That the relation of the servants here addressed, to their muster, 
was adapted to make him the object of their heart-felt attachment. 
Otherwise they could not have been required to render him an affec- 
tionate service. 

2. This relation demanded a perfect reciprocity of benefits. It had 
its soul in good-will, mutuallj^ cherished and properly expressed. 
Hence " the same things," the same in principle, the same in sub- 
stance, the same in their mutual bearing upon the welfare of the mas- 
ter and the servants, was to be rendered back and forth by the one and 
the other. It was clearly the relation of mutual service. Do we here 
find the chattel principle ! 

3. Of course, the servants might not be slack, time-serving, unfaith- 
ful. Of course, the master must " FORBEAR threatening." Slavery 
without threatening ! Impossible. Wherever maintained, it is of 
necessity a system of threatetiing, injecting into the bosom of the 
slave such terrors, as never cease for a moment to haunt and torment 
him. Take from the chattel principle the support, which it derives 
from " threatening," and you annihilate it at once and forever. 

4. This relation was to be maintained in accordance with the prin- 
ciples of the divine government, where "respect of persons" could 
not be admitted. It was, thorofbre, totally inconsistent with, and .sub- 
missive of, the chattel principle, which in American slavery is deve- 
loped in a system of "respect of persons," equally gross and hurttul. 
No Abolitionist, howivor eager and determined in his opposition to 

• F,|)l>( siimp, vi. .'i-9 



55 

elavery, could ask for more than these precepts, once obeyed, would be 
sure to confer. 

" The relation of slavery," according to Professor Stuart, is recog- 
nized in " the precepts of the New Testament," as one which " may 
still exist without violating the Christian faith or the church."* Slavery 
and the chattel principle ! So our professor thinks ; otherwise his 
]'eference has nothing to do with the subject — with the slavery which 
the abolitionist, whom he derides, stands opposed to. How gross and 
hurtfnl is the mistake into which he allows himself to fall. The rela- 
tion recognized in the precepts of the New Testament had its basis 
and support in '' justice and equality ;" the very opposite of the chattel 
principle ; a relation which may exist as long as justice and equality 
remain, and thus escape the destruction to which, in the view of Pro- 
fessor Stuart, slavery is doomed. The description of Paul obliterates 
every feature of American slavery, raising the servant to equality with 
his master, and placing his rights under the protection of justice ; yet 
the eye of Professor Stuart can see nothing in his master and servant 
but a slave and his owner. With this relation he is so thoroughly 
possessed, that, like an evil angel, it haunts him even when he enters 
the temple of justice ! 

" It is remarkable," saith the Princeton professor, " that there is 
not even an exhortation" in the writings of the apostles " to masters to 
liberate their slaves, much less is it urged as an imperative and immedi- 
ate duty."t It would be remarkable, indeed, if they were chargeable with 
a defect so great and glaring. And so they have nothing to say upon the 
subject ? Thxit not even the Princeton professor has the assurance to af- 
firm. He admits that kindness, biercy, and justice, were enjoined with 
a distinct reference to the government of God.X " Without respect of per- 
sons," they vv'ere to be God-like in doing justice. They were to act the 
part of kind and merciful " brethren." And whither would this lead 
them ? Could they stop short of restoring to every man his na- 
tural, inalienable rights ? — of doing what they could to redress the 
wrongs, sooth the sorrows, improve the character, and raise the condi- 
tion of the degraded and oppressed? Especially, if oppressed and de- 
graded by any agency of theirs. Could it be kind, merciful, or just to 
keep the chains of slavery on their helpless, unoffending brother? 
Would this be to honor the Golden Rule, or obey the second great 
command of " their Master in Heaven?" Could the apostles liavc 

* Letter to Dr. Fisk, supra p. 7. 

t Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9. % The same, p. 10. 



56 

subserved the cause of freedom more directly, intelligibly, and effectu- 
ally, than to enjoin the -principles, and sentiments^ and habits, in which 
freedom consists — constituting its living root and fruitful germ ! 

The Princeton professor himself, in the very paper which the South 
has so warmly welcomed and so loudly applauded as a scriptural de- 
fence of "the peculiar institution," maintains, that the "general 

PRINCIPLES OF THE GOSPEL haVC DESTROYED SLAVERY throughout the 

greater part of Christendom"* — '' That Christianity ttas abol- 
ished both political AND DOMESTIC BONDAGE WHEREVER IT HAS HAD 
FREE SCOPE — that it ^TiJoiNS a fair compensation for labor; insists 
on the mental and intellectual improvement of all classes of men ; 
condemns all infractions of marital or parental rights ; requires, in 
short, not only that free scope should be allowed to human improve- 
ment, but that ALL SUITABLE BIEANS should be employed for the attain- 
ment of that end^] It is indeed " remarkable," that while neither 
Chriirt nor his apostles ever gave " an exhortation to masters to libe- 
rate their slaves," they enjoined such " general principles as have de- 
stroyed domestic slavery throughout the greater part of Christendom ;" 
that while Christianity forbears " to urge" emancipation *' as an im- 
perative and immediate duty," i. throws a barrier, heaven high, around 
every domestic circle ; protects all the rights of the husband and the 
father ; gives every laborer a fair compensation ; and makes the 
moral and intellectual improvement of all classes, with free scope and 
all suitable means, the object of its tender solicitude and high authority. 
This is not only " remarkable," but inexplieallc. Yes and no — hot 
and cold, in one and the same breath ! And yet these things stand 
prominent in what is reckoned an acute, ingenious, effective defence of 
slavery ! 

In his letter to the Corinthian church, the apostle Paul furnishes an- 
other lesson of instruction, expressive of his views and feelings on the 
subject of slavery. •' Let every man abide in the same calling where- 
in he was called. Art thou called being a servant ? care not for it ; 
but if thou niayest be made free, use it rather. For he that is called 
in the Lord, being a servant, is the Lord's freeman : likewise also he 
that is called, being free, is Christ's servant. Ye are bought with a 
price ; be not ye the servants of men. "J 

In explaining and applying this passage, it is proper to suggest, 
1. That it could not have been the object of the apostle to bind the 
Corinthian converts to the stations and employments in which the gos- 

• Pittsburg i)amphlcl, p. IH, 19. 1 The same, p. 31. 1 1 Cor. vii. tiO-23. 



57 

pel found them. For he exhorts some of them to escape, if possible, 
from their present condition. In the servile state, "under the yoke," 
they ought not to remain unless impelled by stern necessity. " If thou 
canst be free, use it rather." If they ought to prefer freedom to bond- 
age and to exert themselves to escape from the latter for the sake of 
the former, could their master consistently with the claims and spirit of 
the gospel have hindered or discouraged them in so doing ? Their 
" brother" could he be, who kept " the yoke" upon their neck, which 
the apostle would have them shake offif possible ? And had such mas- 
ters been members of the Corinthian church, what inferences must 
they have drawn from this exhortation to their servants ? That the 
apostle regarded slavery as a Christian institution ? — or could look 
complacently on any efforts to introduce or maintain it in the church ? 
Could they have expected less from him than a stern rebuke, if they re- 
fused to exert themselves in the cause of freedom ? 

2. But while they were to use their freedom, if they could obtain it, 
they should not, even on such a subject, give themselves up to cease- 
less anxiety. " The Lord was no respecter of persons." They need 
not fear, that the "low estate," to which they had been wickedly re- 
duced, would prevent them from enjoying the gifts of his hand or the 
light of his countenance. He would respect their rights, sooth their 
sorrows, and pour upon their hearts, and cherish there, the spirit of 
liberty. " For he that is called in the Lord, being a servant, is the 
Lord's freeman." In kirn, therefore, should they cheerfully confide. 

3. The apostle, however, forbids them so to acquiesce in the servile 
relation, as to act inconsistently with their Christian obligations. To 
their Savior they belonged. By his blood they had been purchased. 
It should be their great object, therefore, to render Him a hearty and 
effective service. They should permit no man, whoever he might be, 
to thrust in himself between them and their Redeemer. " Ye are 
bought with a price ; be not ye the servants of men." 

With his eye upon the passage just quoted and explained, the Prince, 
ton professor asserts that " Paul represents this relation" — the rela- 
tion of slavery — " as of comparatively little account."* And this he 
applies — otherwise it is nothing to his purpose — to American slavery. 
Does he then regard it as a small matter, a mere trifle, to be thrown 
under the slave-laws of this republic, grimly and fiercely excluding 
their victim from almost every means of improvement, and field of use- 
fulness, and source of comfort; and making him, body and substance, 

* Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 10. 
9 



58 

with his wife and babes, " the servant of men ?" Could such a rela- 
tion be acquiesced in consistently with the instructions of the apostle ? 

To the Princeton professor we commend a practical trial of the 
bearing of the passage in hand upon American slavery. His regard 
for the unity and prosperity of the ecclesiastical organizations, which 
in various forms and under different names, unite the southern with the 
northern churches, will make the experiment grateful to his feelings. 
Let him, then, as soon as his convenience will permit, proceed to 
Georgia. No religious teacher* from any free State, can be likely to re- 
ceive so general and so warm a welcome there. To allay the heat, 
which the doctrines and movements of the abolitionists have occasion- 
ed in the southern mind, let him with as much despatch as possible, col- 
lect, as he goes from place to place, masters and their slaves. Now 

• Rev. Mr. Savage, of Utica, New York, had, not very long ago, a free conver- 
sation with a gentleman of high standing in the literary and religious world from 
a slaveholding State, where the "peculiar institution" is cherished with great 
warmth and maintained with iron rigor. By him, Mr. Savage was assured, that 
the Princeton professor had, through the Pittsburg pamphlet, contributed most 
powerfully and cfTectually to bring the " whole South" under the persuasion, that 
slaveholding is in itself right — a system to which the Bible gives countenance and 
support. 

In an extract from an article in the Southern Christian Sentinel, a new Presby- 
terian paper established in Charleston, South Carolina, and inserted in the Chris- 
tian Journal for March 21, 1839, we find the following paragraphs from the pen 
of Rev. C. W. Howard, and, according to Mr. Chester, ably and freely endorsed 
by the editor. " There is scarcely any diversity of sentiment at the North upon 
this subject. The great mass of the people, believing slavery to be sinful, are clear- 
ly of the opinion that, as a system, it should be abolished throughout this land and 
throughout the world. They differ as to the time and mode of abolition. The 
abolitionists consistently argue, that whatever is sinful should be instantly aban- 
doned. The others, hy a strange sort of reasoning for Christian men, contend that 
though slavery is sinful, yet it may he allowed to exist until it shall he expedient to 
abolish it; or, if, in many cases, this reasoning might be translated into plain Eng. 
lish, the sense wo\ild be, both in Church and State, slavery, though sinful, may be 
allowed to exist until our interest will suffer us to say that it must he abolished. 
This is not slander ; it is simply a plain way of stating a plain truth. It does 
seem the evident duty of every man to become an abolitionist, who believes slavery 
to be sinful, for the Bible allows no tampering with sin. 

" To the8<^ remarks, there are some noble exceptions, to be fotmd in both parties 
in tlie churcii. Thi- South owes a debt of gratitude to the Biblical Repertory, for 
the fearless argument in behalf of the posit. on, that slavery is not forbidden by the 
Bible Tlie writer of that article is said, witliout contradiction, to be Professor 
Hodge, of Priuceton-UIS NAME OUGHT TO BE KNOWN AND RE- 
VKREl) A MONd YOU, my brethren, for in a land of anti.slavery men, he is the 
ONLY ONE who has dared to rindiratc your character from the serious charge of 
living in the haliitunl transgression of Ood'/i holy law." 



59 

let all men, whom it may concern, see and own that slavery is a Chris- 
tian institution ! With his Bible in his hand and his eye upon the pas- 
sage in question, he addresses himself to the task of instructing the 
slaves around him. Let not your hearts, my brethren, be overcharged 
with sorrow, or eaten up with anxiety. Your servile condition cannot 
deprive you of the fatherly regards of Him " who is no respecter of 
persons." Freedom you ought, indeed, to prefer. If you can escape 
from " the yoke," throw it off. In the mean time rejoice that " where 
the Spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty ;" that the gospel places 
slaves "on a perfect religious equality" with their master; so that 
every Christian is " the Lord's freeman." And, for your en- 
couragement, remember that "Christianity has abolished both po- 
litical and domestic servitude whenever it has had free scope. It 
enjoins a fair compensation for labor ; it insists on the moral and 
intellectual improvement of all classes of men ; it condemns all infrac- 
tions of marital or parental rights ; in short it requires not only that 
free scope be allowed to human improvement, but that all suitable means 
should be employed for the attainment of that end."* Let your lives, 
then, be honorable to your relations to your Savior. He bought you 
with his own blood ; and is entitled to your warmest love and most ef- 
fective service. "Be not ye the servants of men." Let no human 
arrangements prevent you, as citizens of the kingdom of heaven, from 
making the most of your powers and opportunities. Would such an 
effort, generally and heartily made, allay excitement at the South, and 
quench the flames of discord, every day rising higher and waxing hot- 
ter, in almost every part of the republic, and cement " the Union ?" 

" It is," affirms the Princeton professor, " on all hands acknow. 
ledged, that, at the time of the advent of Jesus Christ, slavery in its 
worst forms prevailed over the whole world. The Savior found it 
around Mm in JuDEA."f To say that he found it in Judea, is to speak 
ambiguously. JMany things were to be found " in Judca," which nei- 
ther belonged to, nor were characteristic of the Jeivs. It is not denied 
that the Gentiles, who resided among them, might have had slaves ; but 
of the Jews this is denied. How could the professor take that as 
granted, the proof of which entered vitally into the argument and was 
essential to the soundness of the conclusions to which he would conduct 
us : How could he take advantage of an ambiguous expression to conduct 
his confiding readers onto a position which, if his own eyes were open, 
he must have known they could not hold in the light of open day ? 

* Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 31. t The same, p. 9 



60 

We do not charge the Savior with any want of wisdom, goodness, 
or courage,* for refusing to " break down the wall of partition between 
Jews and Gentiles" " before the time appointed." While this barrier 
stood, he could not, consistently with the plan of redemption, impart in- 
struction freely to the Gentiles. To some extent, and on extraordina- 
ry occasions, he might have done so. But his business then was with 
" the lost sheep of the house of Israel, "f The propriety of this ar- 
rangement is not the matter of dispute between the Princeton professor 
and ourselves. 

In disposing of the question whether the Jews held slaves during our 
Savior's incarnation among them, the following points deserve earnest 
attention : — 

1. Slaveholding is inconsistent with the Mosaic economy. For the 
proof of this, we would refer our readers, among other arguments more 
or less appropriate and powerful, to the tract already alluded to. J In 
all the external relations and visible arrangements of life, the Jews^ 
during our Savior's ministry among them, seem to have been scrupu- 
lously observant of the institutions and usages of the " Old Dispensa- 
tion." They stood far aloof from whatever was characteristic of Sa- 
maritans and Gentiles. From idolatry and slaveholding — those twin- 
vices which had always so greatly prevailed among the heathen — they 
seem at length, as the result of a most painful discipline, to have been 
effectually divorced. uv .• 

2. While, therefore, John the Baptist, with marked fidelity and gr^f^ 
power, acted among the Jews the part of a reprover, he found no occa- 
sion to repeat and apply the language of his predecessors,^ in exposing 
and rebuking idolatry and slaveholding. Could he, the greatest of the 
prophets, have been less efTectually aroused by the presence of " the 
yoke," than was Isaiah ? — or less intrepid and decisive in exposing 
and denouncing the sin of oppression under its most hateful and injuri- 
ous forms ? 

3. The Savior was not backward iu applying his own principles plainly 
and pointedly to such forms of oppression as appeared among the Jews. 
These principles, wlienever they have been freely acted on, the 
Princeton professor admits, have abolished domestic bondage. Had 
this prevailed within the sjjhcre of our Savior's ministry, he could not, 
consistently with his general character, have failed to expose and con. 
demn it. The oppression of tlie people by lordly ecclesiastics, of pa. 

• PiUsburp pamiihlcl, p. 10. t Matt. xv. 21. t " Tliu Bible ajrainet Slavery." 
6P8almlxxxii; Isa. Iviii. 1-12 Jcr. xxii. 13-16. 



61 

rents by theii* selfish children, of widows by their ghostly counsellors, 
drew from his lips scorching rebukes and terrible denunciations.* 
How, then, must he have felt and spoke in the presence of such tyranny, 
if such tyranny had been within his official sphere, as should liave made 
widows, by driving their husbands to some flesh-market, and their chil- 
dren not orphans, but cattle ? 

4. Domestic slavery was manifestly inconsistent with the industry, 
which, in the form of manual labor, so generally prevailed among the 
Jews. In one connection, in the Acts of the Apostles, we are informed, 
that, coming from Athens to Corinth, Paul "found a certain Jew, 
named Aquila, born in Pontus, lately come from Italy, with his wife 
Priscilla ; (because that Claudius had commanded all Jews to depart 
from Rome ;) and came unto them. And because he was of the same 
craft, he abode with them and wrought : (for by their occupation they 
were tent-makers. ")f This passage has opened the way for different 
commentators to refer us to the public sentiment and genei:al practice 
of the Jews respecting useful industry and manual labor. According' 
to Lightfoot, " it was their custom to bring up their children to some 
trade, yea, though they gave them learning or estates." According to 
Rabbi Judah, " He that teaches not his son a trade, is as if he taught 
him to be a thief. "f It was, Kuinoel affirms, customary even for Jew- 
ish teachers to unite labor (opificium) with the study of the law. This 
he "-nfirms by the highest Rabbinical authority. § Heinrichs quotes a 
P <bi as teaching, that no man should by any means neglect to train 
hi.i son to honest industry. || Accordingly, the apostle Paul, though 
brought up at the " feet of Gamaliel," the distinguished disciple of a 
most illustrious-bleacher, practised the art of tent-making. His own 
hands ministered to his necessities ; and his example in so doing, he 
commends to his Gentile brethren for their imitation. H That Zebedee, 
the father of John the Evangelist, had wealth, various hints in the New 
Testament render probable.** Yet how do we find him and his sons, 
while prosecuting their appropriate business ? In the midst of the hired 
servants, "in the ship mending their nets."ff 

Slavery among a people who, from the highest to the lowest, were 
used to manual labor ! What occasion for slavery there ? And how 
could it be maintained ? No place can be found for slavery among a 

* Matt, xxiii ; Mark, vii. 1-13. t Acts, xviii. 1-3. 

t Henry on Acts, xviii. 1-3. § Kuinoel on Acts. 

II Heinrichs on Acts. IT Acts, xx. 34,35; 1 Tiiess. iv. 11. 

*» Seo Kuinoel's Prolegom. to the Gospel of John. t+ Mark, i. 19, 20. 



62 

people generally inured to useful industry. With such, especially if 
men of learning, wealth, and station, " labor, working with their 
hands," such labor must be honorable. On this subject, let Jewish 
maxims and Jewish habits be adopted at the South, and the " peculiar 
insthution" would vanish like a ghost at daybreak. 

5. Another hint, here deserving particular attention, is furnished in 
the allusions of the New Testament to the lowest casts and most ser- 
vile employments among the Jews. With proRigSites, publicans were 
joined as depraved and contemptible. The outcasts of societ}- were 
described, not as fit to herd with slaves, but as deserving a place among 
Samaritans and publicans. They were " hired servants," whom Zebe. 
dee employed. In the parable of the prodigal son we have a wealthy 
Jewish family. Here servants seem to have abounded. The prodi- 
gal, bitterly bewailing his wretchedness and folly, described their con- 
dition as greatly superior to his own. How happy the change which 
should place him by their side ! His remorse, and shame, and peni- 
tence made him willing to embrace the lot of the lowest of them all. 
But these — what was their condition? They were hired servants. 
♦' Make me as one of thy hired servants." Such he refers to as the 
lowest menials known in Jewish life. 

Lay such hints as have now been suggested together ; let it be re- 
membered, that slavery was inconsistent with the Mosaic economy ; 
that John the Baptist in preparing the way for the Messiah makes no 
reference " to the yoke" which, had it been before him, he would, like 
Isaiah, have condemned ; that the Savior, while he took the part of the 
poor and sympathized with the oppressed, was evidently spared the 
pain of witnessing within the sphere of his ministry, the presence, of 
the chattel principle , that it was the habit of the Jews, whoever they 
might be, high or low, rich or poor, learned or rude, " to labor, work- 
ing with their hands ;" and that where reference was had to the most 
menial employments, in families, they were described as carried on by 
hired servants ; and the question of slavery "in Judca," so far as the 
seed of Abraham were concerned, is very easily disposed of. With 
every phase and form of society among them slavery was inconsistent. 

The position which, in the article so often referred to in this paper 
the Princeton professor takes, is sufliciently remarkable. Northern 
abolitionists he saw in an earnest struggle with southern slaveholders. 
The present welfare and future happiness of myriads of the human fami- 
ly were at stake in this contest. In the heat of the battle, he throws 
himself between the belligerent powers. He gives the abolitionists to 
understand, that they are quite mistaken in the character of the objec 



63 

they have set themselves so openly and sternly against. Slaveholding 
is not, as (hey suppose, contraiy to the law of God. It was witnessed 
by the Savior " in its worst forms,"* without extorting from his lips a 
syllable of rebuke. " The sacred writers did not condemn it."f And 
why should they ? By a definitionj sufficiently ambiguous and slip- 
pery, he undertakes to set forth a form of slavery which he looks upon 
as consistent with the law of Righteousness. From this definition he 
infers that the abolitionists are greatly to blame for maintaining that 
American slavery is inherently and essentially sinful, and for insisting 
that it ought at once to be abolished. For this labor of love the slave- 
holding South is warmly grateful and applauds its reverend ally, as if 
a very Daniel had come as their advocate to judgment. § 

A few questions, briefly put, may not here be inappropriate. 

1. Was the form of slavery which our professor pronounces inno- 
cent the form witnessed by our Savior " in Judea ?" That, he will by 
no means admit. The slavery there was, he affirms, of the " worst" 
kind. How then does he account for the alleged silence of the Savior ? 
— a silence covering the essence and the form — the institution and its 
" worsf abuses ? 

2. Is the slaveholding, which, according to the Princeton professor, 
Christianity justifies, the same as that which the abolitionists so earnest- 
ly wish to see abolished ? Let us see. 

Christianity in supporting Slavery, ac- The American system for supporting 
cording to Professor Hodge^ Slavery, 

" Enjoins a fair compensation for la- Makes compensation impossible by 
bor." reducing the laborer to a chattel. 

" It insists on the moral and intellect- It sternly forbids its victim to learn to 
ual improvement of all classes of men." read even the name of his Creator and 

Redeemer. 

" It condemns all infractions of mari- It outlaws the conjugal and parental 
tal or parental rights." relations. 

"It requires that free scope should be It forbids any effort, on the part of 
allowed to human improvement." myriads of the human family, to im- 

prove their character, condition, and 
prospects. 

"It requires that all suitable means It inflicts heavy penalties for teaching 
should be employed to improve man- letters to the poorest of the poor, 
kind." 

''Wherever it has had free scope, it Wherever it has free scope, it perpetu- 
has abolished domestic bondage." ates domestic bondage. 

Now it is slavery according to the American system that the aboli- 
tionists are set against. Of the existence of any such form of slavery 

♦ Pittsburg pamphlet, p. 9. +The same, p. 13. 

t The same, p. 12. § Supra, p. 58. 



64 

as is consistent with Professor Hodge's account of the requisitions of 
Christianity, they know nothing. It has never met their notice, and 
of course, has never roused their feelings or called forth their exertions. 
What, then, have they to do with the censures and reproaches which 
the Princeton professor deals around? Let those who have leisure 
and good nature protect the man of strcm he is so hot against. The 
abolitionists have other business. It is not the figment of some sickly 
bram ; but that system of oppression which in theory is corrupting, 
and m practice destroying both Church and State ;— it is this that they 
feel pledged to do battle upon, till by the just judgment of Almighty 
God It is thrown, dead and damned, into the bottomless abyss. ^ 

3. How can the South feel itself protected by any shield which may 
be thrown over such slavery, as may be consistent with what the 
Princeton professor describes as the requisitions of Christianity ? 
Is this THE slavery which their laws describe, and their hands main- 
tain ? " Fair compensation for labor"—" marital and parental rights" 
—"free scope" and "all suitable means" for the "improvement, moral 
and intellectual, of all classes of men ;"— are these, according to the 
statutes of the South, among the objects of slaveholding legislation? 
Every body knows that any such requisitions and American slavery 
are flatly opposed to and directly subversive of each other. What 
service, then, has the Princeton professor, with all his ingenuity and all 
his zeal, rendered the " peculiar institution ?" Their gratitude must be 
of a stamp and complexion quite peculiar, if they can thank him for 
throwing their "domestic system" under the vvcight of such Christian 
requisitions as must at once crush its snaky head "and grind it to 
powder." 

And what, moreover, is the bearing of the Christian requisitious, 
which Professor Hodge quotes, upon the definition of slavery which he 
has elaborated ? « All the ideas which necessarily enter into the defi- 
nition of slavery are, deprivation of personal liberty, obligation of ser- 
vice at the discretion of another, and the transferable character oi the 
authority and claim of service of the master."* 

According to Professor Hodge's account Accordirifr to I'rofrssor Uod.res defJni 
of thr requisitions of Chrhtiamty, tion of Slavery, '" 

Tlio sprinfr of otrort in th.' laborer is Tlir lalmrcr must serve at the discre- 
a fair coiiipciisation. tion of aiiotlicr. 

Free hcupc must l)c |riven for Iiis nio- He is diprivcd of personal liberty— 
raland intellectual improveniciit. the necessary condition, and livinp ,fnul 

of imj)roveineiit, without wjiicli he lias 
no control of either intellect or morals. 

» Pittsburg j)aini)hlet p. 12. 



65 

His rights as a husband and a father The authority and claims of the mas 
are to be protected. tor may throw an ocean between him 

and Ins family, and separate them from 
each other's presence at any moment 
and forever. 

Christianity, then, requires such slavery as Professor Hodge so cun. 
ningly defines, to be abolished. It was well provided for the peace of" 
the respective parties, that he placed his definition so far from the requi- 
sitions of Christianity. Had he brought them into each other's pre- 
sence, their natural and invincible antipathy to each other would have 
broken out into open and exterminating warfare. But why should we 
delay longer upon an argument which is based on gross and monstrous 
sophistry ? It can mislead only such as wi$h to be misled. The 
lovers of sunlight are in little danger of rushing into the professor's 
dungeon. Those who, having something to conceal, covet darkness, 
can find it there, to their heart's content. The hour cannot be far 
away, when upright and reflective minds at the South will bo astonished 
at the blindness which could welcome such protection as 'he Princeton 
argument offers to the slaveholder. 

But Professor Stuart must not be forgotten. In his celebrated letter 
to Dr. Fisk, he affirms that " Paul did not expect slavery to be ousted in 
a day."* Did not expect! What then! Are the requisitions of 
Christianity adapted to any expectations which in any quarter and on 
any ground might have risen to human consciousness ? And are we to 
interpret the precepts of the gospel by the expectations of Paul -? The 
Savior commanded all men every where to repent, and this, though 
"Paul did not expect" that human wickedness, in its ten thousand 
forms would in any community « be ousted in a day." Expectations 
a.",! one thing; requisitions quite another. 

In the mean time, while expectation waited, Paul, the professor adds, 
"gave precepts to Christians respecting their demeanor." That he 
did. Of what character were these precepts ? Must they not have 
been in harmony with the Golden Rule ? But this, according to Pro. 
fessor Stuart, "decides against the righteousness of slavery" even as 
a "theory." Accordingly, Christians were required, without respect 
of persons, to do each other justice— to maintain equality as common 
ground for all to stand upon -to cherish and express in all their inter- 
course that tender love and disinterested charily which one brother na. 
turally feels for another. These were the "ad interim precepts,"! 
which cannot fail, if obeyed, to cut up slavery, "root and branch." at 
once and forever. 

♦ Supra, p. 7. + Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 7. 



66 



Professor Stuart comforts us with the assurance that " Christianitu 
mil ultimately certainly destroy slavery." Of this we have not the fee^ 
blest doubt. But how could he admit a persuasion and utter n prediction 
so much at war with the doctrine he maintains, that " slavery may exist 

without VIOLATING THE CHRISTIAN FAITH OR THE CHURCH T'f What 

Clir.stianity bent on the destruction of an ancient and cherished institution 
which hurts neither her character nor condition ! J Why not correct 
Its abuses and purify its spirit; and shedding upon it her own beauty 
preserve it, as a living trophy of her reformatory power ? Whence the 
discovery that, in her onward progress, she would trample down and 
destroy what was no way hurtful to her? This is to be aggressive 
with a witness. Far be it from the Judge of all the earth to whelm the 
innocent and guilty in the same destruction ! In aid of Professor Stu- 
art, in the rude and scarcely covert attack which he makes upon him- 
self, we maintain that Christianity will certainly destroy slavery on ac 
count of its inherent wickedness— its malignant temper— its deadly 
effects— Its constitutional, insolent, and unmitigable opposition to the 
authority of God and the welfare of man. 

"Christianity will ultimately destroy slavery." "Ultimately'' 
What meaneth that portentous word ? To what limit of remotest 
time, concealed in the darkness of futurity, may it look ? Tell us, O 
watchman, on the hill of Andover. Almost nineteen centuries hive 
rolled over this world of wrong and outrage— and yet we tremble in 
the presence of a form of slavery whose breath is poison, whose fang 
is death ! If any one of the incidents of slavery should fall, but for a 
single day, upon the head of the prophet, who dipped his pen in such 
cold blood, to write that word « ultimately," how, under the sufferings 
of the first tedious hour, would he break out in the lamentable cry, 
"How long, O Lord, how long !" In the agony of beholding a wife' 
or daughter upon the table of tlie auctioneer, while every bid fell upon 
his heart like the groan of despair, small comfort would he find in the 
dull assurance of some heartless prophet, quite at "ease in Zion," that 
"ULTIMATELY Christianity would destroy slavery." As the hammer 
falls, and the belove<l of his soul, all helpless and most wretched, is 
borne away to the haunts oUegalized debauchery, his hearts turns to 
stone, while the cry dies upon his lips, ''How long, O Lord, how 

LONG !" 

" Ultimately .'" In wliat circumstances does Professor Stuart assure 

I Letter to Dr. Fisk, p. 7- 

§ Profoieor Stuart applici here the words, talrafidr ct salva ecchsta. 



67 

himself that Christianity will destroy slavery ? Ar^we, as American 
citizens, under the sceptre of a Nero ? When, as integral parts of this 
republic — as living members of this community, did we forfeit the pre- 
rogatives 0^ freemen ? Have we not the right to speak and act as 
wielding the powers which the principle of self-government has put 
in our possession ? And without asking leave of priest or statesman 
of the North or the South, may we not make the most of the freedom 
which we enjoy under the guaranty of the ordinances of Heaven and 
the Constitution of our country 1 Can we expect to see Christianity on 
higher vantage-ground than in this country she stands upon ? In the 
midst of a republic based on the principle of the equality of mankind, 
where every Christian, as vitally connected with the state, freely wields 
the highest political rights and enjoys the richest political privileges ; 
where the unanimous demand of one-half of the members of the 
churches would be promptly met in the abolition of slavery, what " ul- 
iimately" must Christianity here wait for before she crushes the chat- 
tel principle beneath her heel ? Her triumph over slavery is retarded 
by nothing but the corruption and defection so widely spread through 
the " sacramental host" beneath her banners ! Let her voice be heard 
and her energies exerted, and the ultimately of the "dark spirit of 
slavery" would at once give place, to the immediately of the Avenger 
of the Poor. 



% 



5 



i 



